BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.C.NO.49 of 2012
Between:
V.Ramakrishna S/o VPR Vithal
Aged 37 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant
R/o 12-10-121, 1st
Secunderabad-061
1. M/s ISS Hicare Pvt Ltd.,
(formerly known as Godrej Hicare Ltd.,)
Rep. by its Director Mr.Jolly Joseph Kochery
Authorized signatory Head Off: Godrej
Industries Complex, Eastern Express Highway
Vikhroli (E) Mumbai-079
2. M/s ISS Hicare Pvt Ltd.,
(formerly known as Godrej Hicare Ltd.)
Rep. by its Branch Manager, Local Office
At B-7, Road no.4, Vikrampuri Colony
Secunderabad-009
Counsel for the Complainant
Counsel for the Opposite parties
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. `65,00,000/- towards loss, damages and compensation for suffering mental agony.
2.
3. `18,30,000/- and civil work at`11,70,000/- . On account of loss of data, the complainant’s reputation is damaged which resulted in monetary loss to the complainant. The complainant got issued notice on 30.03.2012 to the opposite party for which there was no response from the opposite parties.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
“This is again to put you in Light about the recurrence of termites at the above address time & again and further your inability to attend to visit our place and take up appropriate steps for eradication of termites as per the subsisting Warranty, (Erst while with M/s Godrej Hicare Limited – No known as ISS Hicare Limited).
We have made numerous calls requesting your office/people to visit our place and take up stringent measures to eradicate termites.
But till date nothing has happed from your side.
I once again make a request that, any Senior Supervisor shall visit the place and assess the damage and take appropriate steps for eradicating the recurrence of termites, and also provide me complete details of Replacement Costs, else I have no other option except to proceed legally.”
12.
“I acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 18/08/2011, I am surprised to receive the said letter, we have visited your premises on 25/06/2011, and found the place to be locked, you are aware we have visited your premises on 08/07/2011, on the said date you have refused our technical accessing into your premises and made baseless allegations against the company.
There after we visited your premises on 03/08/2011 and suggested to you that unless the dampness on the walls rectified there can be no effective treatment for terminate the infestation. Please see that treatment extended by us will be put to waste unless the dampness/seepage is stopped by effecting repairs to the wall.”
13.
14. treatment to the premises. He has stated that;
“I submit that I have made several requests to the opposite parties through letters as well as through phones to effect the pest control treatment for eradication of termites as per the service contract cum invoice dated 31.12.2009 but all such my requests went futile and there was no response from the side of opposite parties.
15.
”It was informed to the complainant that in order to achieve the best results, it was necessary to treat the entire affected area of the premises.
…Despite aforesaid suggestions and warnings from us, the complainant was adamant and insisted us to proceed with the termite treatment on the existing wooden and plywood fittings and furniture, which as stated above, were already severely affected by termite and which further had already damaged the goods lying therein.
16.
“I submit that the documents, i.e., job card along with checkup visits slips are created documents with forged signatures of mine, which signatures of mine can be compared from the signatures appearing on the service contract cum invoice dated 31.12.2009, letter dated 22.06.2011, letter dated 18.08.2011, Vakalat and signatures appearing on the above complaint and on a bare perusal, it can be easily ascertain my signatures are forged.
17.
18. In “Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Munimahesh Patel”IV (2006) CPJ 1, the insurance company disputed the genuineness of the documents and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the matter involves adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions, Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the matter and the complainant was entitled to seek relief in court of competent jurisdiction.
“9.The Commission noted that the specific stand of the appellant was that there was mis-declaration in the proposal form and the false claim that the respondent’s wife was a teacher which as now appears is not the correct position. It also accepted that she was really not a teacher.
10.Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e.
11.The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.
12.The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission.
13.Above being the position, the Commission was not justified to deal with the matter in the manner as was done. In our view, the directions of the State Commission were more appropriate keeping in line with the nature of dispute. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs”.
19.
20. In the result, the complaint is returned to the complainant giving him liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other competent Forum. In the event the complainant approaches the Civil Court, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others” reported in III (2012) CPJ 17”.
కె.ఎం.కె*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For complainant
NIL
For complainant
Ex.A1
Ex.A2
Ex.A3
Ex.A4
Ex.A5
Ex.A6
Ex.A7
Ex.A8
Ex.A9 Ex.A10
Ex.A11
Ex.A12
Ex.A13
Ex.A14
Ex.A15
For opposite party
Ex.B1
Ex.B2
Ex.B3 to the complainant.
