Date of filing: 06.07.2015 Date of disposal:19.01.2018.
Complainant: Pranab Adhikari, S/o. Late Biswanath Adhikari, Vill.-Karulia, P.O.-Kaithaon, P.S.-
Katwa, Dist.-Burdwan.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mani Square,
6th floor, 164, Maniktala Main Road, Mani Square Premises No.41, Cannel
Circle Road, Kolkata-700054, W.B.
2. Partha Sarathi Guha, Officer-in-charge, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd., MV Apartment, 36, G.T. Road, 3rd floor, Parbirhata, P.O.-Sreepally,
Burdwan-713103.
3. Branch Manager, Rudra Hyundai, Dealers & Service Branch, Laxmipur, G.T.
Road, Opp. Star Cinema, Burdwan-713101, W.B.
4. Susovan Kundu, Body Shop-in-charge, Rudra Hyundai, 223, Ushagram, G.T.
Road (East), Asansol, Dist.-Burdwan.
5. Rama Prasad Paramanick, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Babaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Asansol, PC Chatterjee Market, 2nd floor, Asansol, Near
Murgasol, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713303.
6. Branch Manager, Sundaram Finance, MV Apartment, 36, G.T. Road, 3rd
floor, Parbirhata, P.O.-Sreepally, Burdwan-713103.
Proforma O.P. No. 7. Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, 3rd floor, Paris Rama
Bhawan, Basir Bagh, Hydrabad-50004.
8. SEBI, Plot No.C4, AG Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai-400 051.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Miss Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant : Ld. Advocate, Sekhar Mukhopadhyay
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Saurav Kumar Mitra
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.3: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.4: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.5: None.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.6: Ld. Advocate, Mosihur Rahaman Mallick
Appeared for the Proforma Opposite Party No.7: Tejavath Srinivas Nath (Joint Director)
Appeared for the Proforma Opposite Party No.8: Ld. Advocate, Sukumar Mondal
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to settle the claim on payment of Rs. 3,15,093/- towards loss of articles, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant along with an award for business loss/interest for delayed payment of the loss of an article.
The complainant’s case in short is that on 26.6.2014 at about 2.25 A.M. a truck dashed his car bearing No.WB 42 Z5827 at Punjabi Para, Mehedibagan, Burdwan when he was returned from Durgapur to Burdwan. The said car was driven by the complainant himself. The car was damaged badly. The complainant and co-passenger of the vehicle was injured seriously. For treatment the local people of the area admitted the complainant and his co-passenger in BMC & Hospital at first. Later the complainant was admitted in Disan Hospital considering the seriousness of the complainant where he treated from 26.6.2014 to 01.7.2014. As per advice of the doctor he again went to Disan Hospital for removing the nail.
During the period of treatment the damaged car was under custody of police at Fagupur as both the vehicle reported to be seized on 01.07.2014 by the police authority. As per order of the Ld. CJM, Burdwan the vehicle was released on 27.9.2014 and the same was handed over to Rudra Hyundai at Burdwan with their assurance for cash-less facilities. The complainant visited the branch office of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. at Burdwan on 17.11.2014 and when a letter was delivered it was acknowledged by the Insurance Company with remark of their acceptance ‘without any documents and claim form’. Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint at the toll free number. On 3.12.2014 the complainant submitted filled up claim form along with all documents before the branch office of Insurance Company at Burdwan. O.P. insurance company repeatedly insisted the complainant to sign on the claim discharge and satisfactory voucher which was attached with the claim form. When the complainant refused to signed on the blank discharge voucher the official of the said office have shown their annoyance and put down their comment on discharge voucher ‘refused’ without signature’ and put stamp of the insurance company on the said paper.
All the documents were deposited on 3.12.2014 before the O.P. insurance company. On 9.12.2014 the complainant received a letter from the O.P. insurance company stating that due to delay in forwarding information about the accident they have deprived the insurance company to undertake spot inspection. In this connection the complainant stated that due to treatment of the complainant by way of hospitalization under serious condition it was not possible for the complainant to communicate t he fact of the incident since the complainant himself was fighting for his survival during the period of treatment. The cause of delay was intimated to the insurance company on 17.11.2014.
The damaged vehicle was received at the service center, Rudra Hyundai at Burdwan Branch on 27.9.2014. On 9.12.2014 it was intimated by body shop-in-charge of Rudra Hyundai that the said car was under their disposal in un-dismantling condition since 8.10.2014 and awaited for decision from owner and surveyor side. They have stated that an amount of Rs.250/- per day will be imposed as parking charge from the date of entry of the car to the workshop. O.P. insurance company issued one letter to the complainant on 03.12.2014 stating that they have received the intimation of accident from the complainant only on 01.12.2014 and the accident took place on 26.6.2014. In that letter it has been stated that due to delay in receipt of information they have deprived of the chance of spot survey of vehicle. However, they stated to depute surveyor for assessment of damage and to assist him by providing necessary documents for their verification.
Inspite of submission of claim form it appears that the insurance company have not appointed surveyor in time to access the magnitude of damage of the vehicle which was lying in the workshop of Rudra Hyundai since 8.10.2014. On 28.1.2015 O.P. insurance company by sending a letter to the complainant informed that after scrutinizing the document they are unable to admit any liability as per policy terms and conditions. The complainant mentioned all concerned facts about no-engagement of any surveyor and loss assessor to ascertain magnitude of damage and to submit estimate thereof but without taking that action they simply forwarded a letter of repudiation on flimsy ground. The above acts amply proves that a deliberate attempt is being made by the insurance company with Rudra Automobile to deprived the complainant from his genuine claim with an ulterior motive which clearly attracts deficiency in service by adapting fraudulent practice. Hence, the case.
The O.P. No.2 contested this case by filing written version denying all the material allegation as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. This O.P. stated that the policy bearing No.OG-14-2420-1801-00000772 was issued by covering the risk of a new Hyundai vehicle with chassis number MALA-151A-LDM233131 and engine number G3HADM206251 subject to term, condition and stipulation thereof. The original of the said policy along with the terms and condition is in the custody of the complainant and these O.P. puts the complainant to produce the same before the Ld. Court. That this case is not maintainable before the Ld. Forum because several complicated question of Law and fact is involved and adjudication of the same is not possible in summery trial without examination and cross examination in details. Without prejudice to the defense as stated above this O.P. strongly denied that the complainant was not aware the toll free number where as in the policy it was mentioned. It was also denied that on 17.11.2014 the complainant was file claim form as alleged in the complain petition. In the letter so received by this O.P. on 17.11.2014 it will appear that on that letter the complainant asked this O.P. for issuing claim form. Subsequently, the claim form was issued vide letter dated 3.12.2014 along with by wanting explanation for causing delay of intimating regarding the accident.
This O.P. further stated that though the document was produced but o explanation was received as such the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 28.1.2015 and that was intimated to the O.P. There was neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice for repudiating the claim. The repudiation was as per terms of policy. As there was violation of term and policy so the case was repudiated as per terms of policy. It is submitted that how and from whom/where the complainant came to learn that the Rama Prasad Paramanik was appointed as a surveyor is also a question of adjudication for which the examination and cross examination person/s is required which is not possible under summary trial. The said alleged Rama Prasad Paramanik was not appointed by this O.P. as surveyor.
This O.P. No.2 also stated that the complainant has not claim before the Ld.Court with clean hands from the document as has been produced by them. It appears that the police authority has seized the vehicle on 14.8.2014 ‘as produced by Pranab Adhikary’ before the Burdwan police station compound where as the complainant alleged that he was bed ridden and his allegation is that for such he was not able to produce intimation to the O.P. This O.P. does not admit the allegation of ill health of the complainant as has been alleged for delay intimation and this O.P. strongly belief there are malafide intension of the complainant. This O.P. also puts the complainant to prove the medical paper by examination of issuing office of the same.
This O.P. further stated that the contract or that insurance is a contract of good faith and trust the complainant neither lodge the claim with clean hands nor they have came before this Ld. Forum with true and proper story the complainant knowing fully well that he is not entitled to get any relief has filed a present complain with all short of all frivolous and self made allegation for hearing this O.P. and thus the complaint petition should be dismiss with cost by treating the same as a vexatious complain with a cost in favour of the O.P.
The O.P. No.3 contested this case and to submit that the complainant for the first time handed over the damaged vehicle to the workshop of this O.P. on 27.9.2014. After receiving the said vehicle the O.P. asked the complainant to submit documents in connection of the said vehicle to open the job card. But the complainant could not submit the documents and ultimately, the complainant submitted those documents on 8.10.2014 and thereafter job card was opened. On 20.11.2014 this O.P. sent all the documents to their head office at Asansol to lodge insurance claim of the accidental vehicle. The complainant himself went to the workshop of the Asansol Office on 25.11.2014 and talked with the surveyor namely Mr. Ram Prasad Pramanik of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. That with the assistant of this O.P. the complainant lodged insurance claim before the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. on 01.12.2014 and submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim.
That on 04.12.2014 the surveyor Mr. Rama Prasad Pramanik came at the Asansol workshop to take primary photo. Then the Asansol head office of this O.P. submitted estimate for repairing the damaged vehicle to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. on 5.12.2014 for settlement of the claim. After receiving the estimate from Asansol head office the surveyor again visited at Asansol workshop on 9.12.2014 but did not provide any work to this O.P. for repairing the damaged vehicle. Thereafter this O.P. sent a letter dated 10.12.2014 to the complainant stating that due to non-providing of work order from the insurance company, the repairing work of the damaged vehicle of the complainant has not been started. Moreover this O.P. also sent another letter dated 16.1.2015 to the complainant stating that this O.P. could not start the repairing work due to non-providing of work order either from the insurance company or from the complainant. As per management decision this O.P. also issued one e-mail to the insurance company on 29.01.2015 to know the cause of delay work procedure for the said vehicle.
That the insurance company replied to this O.P. through e-mail on same date that the claim lodged by the complainant would be repudiated from their end and soon the insurance company would send repudiation letter to the complainant and finally the said claim was repudiated by the insurance company. As the claim has been repudiated by the insurance company, so, this O.P. sent a letter to the complainant on 4.4.2015 requesting to pick up the accidental vehicle from their workshop. But not a single response came from the part of the complainant. Thereafter, this O.P. again sent a reminder letter to the complainant on 22.4.2015 requesting again to pick up the accidental vehicle from, their workshop. But this time also communicated with the complainant through over phone to take return the damaged vehicle because the vehicle unnecessarily occupied in their garage which was rented by this O.P. but no fruitful result came from the part of the complainant. But very surprisingly, the complainant sent a legal notice to this O.P. alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against this O.P. which is illegal, arbitrary and beyond the provisions of law. That the complainant has unnecessarily made a party to this O.P. intentionally just to harassment this O.P. and nothing else and as such the complaint petition lodged by the complainant before this Ld. Forum is liable to be dismissed against this O.P. with compensatory cost.
The O.P. No.6 contested this case by filing written version and stating that this O.P. No.6 was only Financer of the said accidental damaged car and no dispute had been arisen between the complainant and this O.P. in respect of their co-lateral contract still today. This O.P. contest this case just order that the name of the O.P. No.6 improperly joined, be struck out or expunge his name from this case because may not be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the complaint. The O.P. No.6 was not necessary party or proper party.
The above complaint had been arisen out of an accident of two motor vehicles being Burdwan P.S. Case No.825/2014 dated 1.7.2014 due to negligence of driving and riding and there was no involvement of O.P. No.6 as an accused person. Hence, this case and this O.P. prayed for struck out or expunge his name from this case.
The O.P. No.7 contested this case by filing written version and submits that no specific relief has been sought for against the IRDAI which is arrayed as Proforma/O.P. No.7. At the outset, it is the case of between the complainant and O.P. No.1, 2 & 3 relating to settlement of the claim arising under and insurance policy. It is observed from the perusal of records at IRDA that the complainant had not approached IRDAI seeking any intervention of the Authority. As such, it is clear from the above that IRDAI has not failed or erred in performance of its duties and hence is not responsible for any inaction on its part.
This O.P. further stated that the onus is on the insurance company to resolve the grievance and IRDAI plays a facilitative role in resolution of grievances as it discharges regulatory and supervisory functions. IRDAI lays down broad policy and does not adjudicate upon dispute between individual policy holder and the Insurance Company. The complainant can approach Insurance Ombudsman, if his grievance is not addressed or he is not satisfied with the resolution provided by the insurance company. As such no further role of IRDAI would have arisen in so far as resolution of grievance is concerned. Also, IRDAI does not take up every complaint for examination from the regulatory perspective and for initiation of regulatory actions in case of violations of regulations etc. Considering the volume of complaints received on the Integrated Grievance Management System, it is not practically feasible. IRDAI plays a facilitative role in resolution of grievances but does not investigate into each complaint for regulatory compliance and for initiation of regulatory action.
This O.P. also stated that IRDAI has put in place a system called Integrated Grievance Management System (IGMS) whereby any policyholder could register a complaint which will be flagged to the insurance company for quick resolution. If the complaint is addressed to IRDAI, it is registered and the documents captured are forwarded to the insurance company for resolution. The insurance company is required to examine the complaint and attend to it within two weeks by responding to the complainant. The action taken on the complaint has to be updated by the insurance company in the Integrated Grievance Management System. The status of the complaint and the description of action taken can be checked by the complainant from the IGMS or by calling up the IRDAI Grievance call centre by using the token number assigned to the complaint. In case the complainant does not come back within eight weeks of the insurance company attending to the complaint and recording the action taken, the complaint will be closed by the insurance company. In case the company does not respond even after 15 days or if the complainant is not satisfied with the action taken, he can again escalated the complaint to IRDAI. IRDAI will than take up the complaint with the company for its resolution and responding to the complainant. In case of dissatisfaction with the resolution of the insurance company, the complainant may approach the Insurance Ombudsman or any other appropriate legal authority.
It is emphasized again that IRDAI merely plays a facilitative role by taking up the complaint with the insurance companies for their resolution and updating the status of complaint but does not adjudicate the complaint. It monitors the grievance redressal mechanism of insurance companies. Since the complainant had not even approached IRDAI, its resolution could not be monitored by IRDAI through Integrated Grievance Management System. Accordingly, it is humbly submitted that IRDAI has not erred in fulfillment of its role as such, has not been deficient in service and prays before this Forum to dismiss the complaint against IRDAI.
The O.P. No.8 also contested this case by filing written version and stated that the complainant has unnecessarily arrayed the answering O.P. as a defendant to the instant matter, who has no regulatory jurisdiction over such matter as is sought to be disputed/raised before this Ld. Forum. The said complaint pertains to a motor vehicle accident and subsequent insurance claim filed against the O.P. No.1. The complainant is aggrieved with his insurance claim not being settled by the insurance company. The complaint is purely based on the dispute between the complainant and the O.P. No.1, an insurance company regarding a purported deficiency in service by the O.P. No.1. The answering O.P. is not related to the dispute sought to be redressed and as such no relief has either been claimed against the answering O.P. This O.P. submits that the instant complaint is legally untenable and frivolous as against the answering O.P. it is a case of misjoinder of parties which is based on inapt understanding of the legal provisions regulating the functioning of the answering O.P. and their scope of work. This answering O.P. is filing the present written version for bringing the legal aspects of the matter to the notice of this Hon’ble Forum and reserve its right to file a detailed reply or submission or opportunity of hearing, if and when necessary.
SEBI is established under Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for performing statutory functions assigned to it under the said Act and as such cannot be said to be rendering any services for consideration as contemplated U/s. 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). It is respectfully submitted that the performance of statutory functions cannot be construed as rendering of any services for consideration in terms of the Consumer protection Act as no fees is charged by SEBI from any investors for the functions performed.
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove this case the complainant has filed his affidavit of examination in chief where he has stated the facts of the case. O.P. No.1 & 2 prayed for accepting their written version as their evidence. The O.P. No.3 files written version supported by affidavit. O.P. No.1 & 2 also filed petition that surveyor will adduce evidence. An opportunity was given by this Forum but they failed to adduce any evidence but the report of the surveyor is filed by the O.P. No.1 & 2 with affidavit along with documents. From the evidence on record and from the documents filed by the O.Ps. and also hearing of the argument of the parties it is clear to this Forum that admittedly the complainant purchased the policy being No. OG-14-2420-1801-00000772 and during the validity of the policy period the vehicle was damaged by following a road accident. In the said accident the complainant got serious injuries and was hospitalized. This fact has not been denied by the O.Ps. by producing sufficient and cogent evidence. Moreover, from the documents filed by the parties it goes to show that the FIR was lodged on the date of accident by one Nilkamal Saha stating the fact that the vehicle in question was seriously damaged by rush and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.WB 25C 0319 and following the accident seriously injured complainant was hospitalized. This fact has been stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint. So, complainant was not in a position to inform the accident immediately to the O.P. Insurance Company for his hospitalization etc. This fact has been proved by the documents submitted by the complainant that following the accident GR Case No.2371/2014 U/s. 279/338/337/427 was started against driver of the offending vehicle. Complainant filed the copy of FIR and charge sheet. The vehicle was seized by the police and the certified copies of the GR Case goes to show that said vehicle was released afterwards as per order dated 27.9.2014 of Ld. CJM, Burdwan. Thereafter, the damaged vehicle handed over to Rudra Hyundai, O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.3 in his written version also admitted this fact and after receiving the vehicle asked the complainant to submit the documents to open the job card. The complainant supplied the same on 8.10.2014 and job card was opened. Thereafter, this O.P. No.3 sent all documents to lodge insurance claim of the accidental vehicle and this O.P. No.3 also stated that the complainant himself went to the Assansol Office of the O.P. Insurance Company on 25.11.2014 and met with surveyor of O.P. No.1 & 2. The surveyor’s report (Ext.4) is submitted by the O.P. No.1 & 2 which goes to show that the vehicle was surveyed on 5.12.2014 and description of the loss as reported by the surveyor ‘as per claim form while the vehicle was running another vehicle from the opposite direction heat the front portion of this vehicle face to face and it has got major damage’. In the surveyor’s report the total assessed loss is Rs.2,62,806/-, after depreciation amount of Rs.53,662/-, the net assessed amount (parts +labour) is Rs.2,61,806/- The complainant stated that as he was seriously injured following the accident and the vehicle was seized by the police and after releasing the same following the order of the Ld. CJM, he immediately handed over the car for repairing. He submitted claim form as per requirement of the O.P. No.1& 2 vide their letter dated 3.12.2014 issued to this complainant. However, O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant on 28.1.2015 on the ground that wanting explanation from the complainant for causing delay of intimating the accident to the Insurance Company. Complainant has been able to explaine the delay that he himself was seriously injured which reflects in the FIR and also for consequent seizer of the damaged vehicle by the police and in the month of December, 2014 he was able to get the vehicle release and send the same to the O.P. No.3 for repair. Therefore, this O.P. cannot alleged that complainant with all short of frivolous and self made allegation made claim for insurance amount for his damaged vehicle and that vexatious complaint is also made when the O.P. repudiated the claim. The O.P. also submitted the case of the complaint in its written version that they received the vehicle on 27.9.2014 for repairing, opened the job card on 8.10.2014 and send all the documents to lodge insurance claim and complainant himself assisted the surveyor to survey the damage and lodged insurance claim on 1.12.2014 with all required documents. Therefore, the delay in informing the claim has been properly explained by the complainant. The O.P. did not settle the claim as per the policy rather repudiated the claim on the ground of violation of terms of policy that the intimation of accident was reported on 1.12.2014 while the accident occurred on 26.6.2014 and that complainant did not enable the company to assess the liability, making the company unable to adjudicate the claim and claims stands repudiated. This Forum do not find any laches on the part of the complainant from his conduct and from the documents he filed. It is clear that as soon as he received the seized vehicle from the court’s order the process started. He handed over the vehicle for repair and thereafter following all the formalities submitted his claim form duly filled in along with all documents on 01.12.2014. We do not find any other non-cooperation from the complainant regarding survey and assessment of the vehicle. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the O.P. insurance company has not justified. It is not true that O.P. Insurance Company received information of accident on 01.12.2014 while complainant vide letter dated 17.11.2014 submitted duly filled up claim form after receiving the seized vehicle and sending the same for repair. The report of the surveyor submitted by the O.P. Insurance Company support the complaint case that the vehicle was seriously damaged and he assessed net amount of damaged vehicle of Rs.2,61,806/-. More over the grounds of repudiation was never taken in the letter of repudiation that complainant intentionally did not give information. The circumstances compelled the complainant to submit the claim form only after getting release of the seized vehicle from police.
O.P. No.6 in its written version stated that as a financer this O.P. has nothing to do in the dispute arising between the complainant and O.P. Insurance Company in respect of their co-lateral contract of the insurance policy. This O.P., therefore, claimed that he has been improperly joined and not a necessary party to adjudicate upon the settlement of insurance claim.
The O.P. No.7, IRDAI submits that there is nothing on record that the complainant approached to IRDAI for seeking any intervention and IRDAI never failed or erred in performance of his duties and is not responsible for any inaction on its part. The complainant did not approach before the Insurance Ombudsman or Integrated Grievance Management System to facilitative role of IRDAI in resolution of grievances and therefore, IRDAI is not in any way deficient in service.
O.P. No.8 also in its written version stated that it has no regulatory jurisdiction as is ought to be disputed before this Forum. It pertains to a motor vehicle accident and subsequent insurance claim against the O.P. No.1 and complainant is aggrieved with the insurance claim by not settling the claim by the O.P. Insurance Company and therefore, SEBI is not negligent in performing statutory functions in this dispute.
From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear to this Forum that complainant has been able to prove that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 26.6.2014. The vehicle was seized by the police. The complainant became seriously injured and was hospitalized. He get the vehicle released and soon after getting the same took the vehicle for repair and made his claim with assistance of O.P. No.3 following the terms and conditions of the policy. O.P. Insurance Company negligent and deficient in service in not settling the claim and repudiated the same which is not proper. The complainant is entitled to get damages of the said vehicle in terms of the policy. The surveyor’s report goes to show that the total loss he surveyed and estimated Rs.2,62,806/- and net amount is Rs.2,61,806/- is our considered view this Forum hold that if the said amount of Rs.2,61,806/- if ordered to pay by the Insurance Company for settling the claim towards the loss of the said vehicle under the insurance policy it will met the ends of justice. We also hold that the complainant unnecessarily suffered and harassed mentally due to non-settlement of claim. Therefore, if a some of Rs.10,000/- is allowed as compensation for such harassment it will also met the ends of justice. The complainant is further allowed a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Thus the complaint case succeeds on contest but in part. C.F. is paid. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the consumer complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2 Insurance Company and dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.3, 6, 7 & 8 and exparte against the O.P. No.4 & 5.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 Insurance Company are directed to pay Rs.2,61,608/- towards damages of the vehicle to the complainant.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 Insurance Company are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 Insurance Company are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation to the complainant.
The above all directions be complied within 45 days from this date of order, failing which 8% interest will be carried on total awarded amount.
The complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh) (Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
