Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/608/2012

Harmesh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/608/2012
Date of Institution	:	24/09/2012
Date of Decision	:	11/02/2015

 

 

Harmesh Singh, resident of House No.1143, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15 & 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013, through its Regional Manager/Director.
2. The Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited SCO No.149-150, Sector 9C, Chandigarh

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                                               

                       

For complainant	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
For OPs	Sh. S.K. Sharma, Proxy counsel for Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate.

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Harmesh Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that somewhere in the month of March 2012, OP-2 made a telephonic call to him apprising him about salient features of “Birla Sun Life Insurance Vision Plan”.  The complainant was told that the abovesaid policy was a single premium policy having lock in period of three years from the date of commencement and that on the commencement of fourth policy year, the complainant was duly entitled to matured value of the policy.  After discussion with OP-2, he sent an agent who persisted with the complainant to invest the money in the scheme floated by OP-1. Various projections were made through attractive brochures and pamphlets and a very rosy picture was created and it was assured that the money invested in the scheme would give handsome returns i.e. more than 33% interest per annum on the amount invested.   Believing the projections made by the OPs to be true, the complainant signed the blank proposal form document and deposited single premium of Rs.2 lacs approximately in the Birla Sun Life Insurance Vision Plan.  According to the complainant, he was misled and it was never disclosed that his hard earned money was going to be subjected to market movements. The said fact came to complainant’s notice when he received the policy document Annexure C-1 on 18.5.2012 which reflected the policy having annual frequency and policy term to be 11 years etc.  He immediately telephonically informed OP-2 as well as the agent and raised a demand for refund of the premium amount of Rs.1,99,990.89 vide letter dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure C-2) which was acknowledged on 25.5.2012 (Annexure C-3) by the OPs.  However, the OPs vide letter dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure C-4) stated that they were unable to accede to the request for cancellation of the policy as they were not in receipt of any concern towards the said policy within the free look period.  However, subsequently the OPs vide letter dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure C-5) admitted that they had received the cancellation request within the free look period but at the same time stated that they were in receipt of letter dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure C-6) of the complainant confirming to continue with the policy. The complainant has denied the execution of letter dated 28.5.2012 and it has been alleged that the same is a fabricated letter written with mischievous intent by the OPs. The complainant opposed the letter dated 16.8.2012 by writing letter dated 5.9.2012 (Annexure C-7) but to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their joint written reply, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint involves disputed questions of fact; that the policy was purchased by the complainant with the clear motive of investment and earning more and more profits and multiplying the invested amount, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. It has been averred that the OPs received the proposal form No.46170781 from the complainant for insurance of his wife Smt. Tajinderpal Kaur. In the said proposal form dated 12.4.2012 the complainant applied for the purchase of BSLI Vision Plan for a policy term of 36 years and premium paid term was 11 years and paid the basic premium of Rs.1,99,996.29 and the basic sum assured was Rs.14,61,000/-. It has been averred that before acceptance of the aforesaid proposal, the contents of the proposal/ application, illustrations and the addendum forms were read and explained to the complainant/life assured. It has been denied that any assurance was given by OPs or their agents. It has also been denied that blank proposal form was signed by the complainant. It has been pleaded that the complainant/life assured is a graduate and was very well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy, the nature of the product, premium payable and the risk coverage. It has been admitted that the complainant applied for the cancellation of the policy within the free look period but later on the cancellation request was withdrawn by him vide letter dated 28.5.2012.  It has been contended that the complainant is not liable to get any refund.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have scrutinized the entire evidence, written submissions of the complainant and rulings produced by the OPs.  The learned counsel for the OPs did not file the written arguments despite ample opportunities including the last opportunity.  On 3.12.2014, Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate of the OPs stated that he had not to file the written arguments because previously a similar case had been decided by District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh. He produced a copy of the judgment dated 5.11.2014 passed by District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh in support of his case.  On 21.1.2015 when the verbal arguments of the complainant were heard, only a proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for the OPs and since he was not authorized to address the arguments, the case was reserved for orders.  The OPs were still granted an opportunity to file written arguments again within three days, if they so desired, but even then written arguments were not filed by the OPs.
5.         It is the admitted case of the OPs that the complainant made a proposal form No.46170781 dated 12.4.2012 for insurance of his wife Smt. Tejinder Pal Kaur. The complainant applied for purchase of BSLI Vision policy for a term of 36 years and premium pay term was 11 years. The basic premium was Rs.1,99,996.29 and the basic sum assured was Rs.14,61,000/-.
6.         As far as the contentions of the complainant that it was told by OP-2 that the above said policy was a single premium policy and lock in period for the policy was 3 years and the agent of OP-2 decoyed him and persisted him to invest money and he signed the blank proposal form are concerned, it is pertinent that the complainant is a senior citizen and quite mature person. The copy of the proposal form (at page 25 to 27 of the paper book) shows that the date of birth of the complainant is 15.11.1940 and he executed the proposal form on 12.4.2012. The proposal form bears the signatures of the complainant as well as his wife Mrs. Tejinder Pal Kaur whose life was insured. The proposal form clearly shows the basic premium to be Rs.1,99,996.29 and basic sum assured to be Rs.14,61,000/-, policy term to be 36 years and pay term to be 11 years. Significantly, while making a request for cancellation of policy No.005546214 vide letter dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure C-2), the complainant did not mention that he was told by OP-2 that it was a single premium policy and lock in period was 3 years and that he signed the blank proposal form. In M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Agarwal Steel-2010 (1) SCC 83, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a document is signed by a party, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood.  In the instant case, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is a presumption that the complainant had read the proposal form properly and understood its contents.  Hence, it cannot be presumed that the complainant signed the blank proposal form assuming that it was single premium policy with a lock in period of three years.
7.         The OPs have pleaded in their written reply that the policy was purchased by the complainant with clear motive of investment and earning more and more profits and multiplying the invested amount. The OPs have placed reliance on Ms.Saavi Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Complaint No.208 of 2012 decided on 1.10.2012 by Hon’ble National Commission (Ex.R-6), Jayantilal Trikambhai Brahambhatt & Anr. Vs. Abhinav Gold International Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Complaint No.237 of 2012 decided on 19.9.2012 by the Hon’ble National Commission (Ex.R-7) and judgment of learned District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh in Harmesh Singh Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.-Consumer Complaint No.508 of 2012 decided on 5.11.2014 and have vehemently contended that the complainant had entered into speculative transaction and the Consumer Protection Act is not for entering or compensating speculative transactions or losses.  It has been contended that when a person invests for earning huge profits, he does not fall within the definition of a consumer and since the present investment was made for earning 33% interest per annum on the investment, as alleged by the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.
8.         We have given our careful consideration to the above contentions but we are not impressed with the same. It is significant to note that the complainant did not apply for any unit linked or share market linked insurance policy. The copy of the insurance policy Annexure C-1 itself shows that the complainant obtained a non-participating whole life traditional insurance plan. It is quite evident that an aged person while getting an insurance plan would try to obtain an insurance policy in which he gets maximum profits. Thus, if an assurance was given by the OPs to the complainant that he would get more than 33% interest per annum on the amount invested by him and his money would be fully safe, it cannot be stated that the complainant purchased the policy with clear motive of investment and earning profits and multiplying the investment alone.  We have gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the OPs but the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case because we do not feel that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.1,99,996.29 for earning huge profits or entering into a speculative transaction. Hence, none of the rulings/judgments is applicable to the facts of the present case.  The view taken by the learned District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh is not binding upon this Forum.
9.         It is the admitted case of the complainant that he received policy No.005546214 Annexure C-1 on 18.5.2012. Since the policy document issued by the OPs was totally contrary to the projections made by the OPs to the complainant initially, therefore, the complainant informed OP-2 telephonically as well as the agent that he was not interested in the said policy and raised the demand for refund of his premium amount vide letter dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure C-2). That letter was duly acknowledged by OP-2 at Chandigarh on 25.5.2012 vide acknowledgement receipt Annexure C-3. In other words, the request for cancellation of the insurance policy No.005546214 and one another policy (No.005544728) and for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was made by the complainant to OP-2 within 15 days look in period.  However, the OPs vide letter dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure C-4) informed that they were not in receipt of any concern towards policies No.005546214 & 005544728 within the free look period and they were unable to accede to his request for any changes or cancellation of the policies.  Thereafter, the OPs again sent a letter dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure C-5) to the complainant wherein they mentioned that the free look cancellation request was submitted by the complainant to the branch on 25.5.2012 i.e. within the free look period. However, they were in receipt of his letter dated 28.5.2012 confirming that he wished to continue with the above policies, hence, the free look request was not processed. The complainant was sent a copy of the letter for his reference which has been produced as Annexure C-6. The complainant was also informed that if their (OPs) response was not as per his expectations, he could write to the grievance officer and in case they did not receive a reply within 8 weeks from the date of their response, his concern would be considered as resolved.  The OPs have also produced a copy of the letter dated 28.5.2012 as Ex.R-8 (copy Annexure C-6 already produced by the complainant) which was allegedly received by them on 28.5.2012. However, the complainant has denied his signature and the fact of filing of the application/letter Annexure C-6 with the OPs. According to the allegations of the complainant, the said letter Annexure C-6 is a fabricated letter written with the mischievous intent by the OPs and they have cleverly concocted and crafted a tale to oust the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, the core question that arises for determination is whether the complainant had made a request vide letter dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure
   C-6/Ex.R-8) to the OPs that he wanted to continue his policies and withdrew his previous request for cancellation of the policies or that the same is a fabricated letter with the mischievous intent by the OPs?
10.         It is important to note that during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant made an application for directing the OPs to produce the original record pertaining to Ex.R-8 and sending the same to CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory) for comparison with the admitted documents. That application was contested by the OPs. However, after hearing both the sides, the application was allowed vide order dated 23.5.2013 by this Forum. The OPs were directed to produce the original letter, copy of which is Ex.R-8 alongwith other documents/letters showing the admitted handwriting and signatures of the complainant for sending the same to the CFSL for comparison of the disputed handwriting and signature of the complainant with his admitted signatures and handwriting. The learned counsel for the OPs brought the original of Ex.R-8 on 5.6.2013 but he stated that the remaining documents/ letters were not received from Mumbai. At his request, the case was adjourned to 21.6.2013 and 16.7.2013.  On 16.7.2013, the learned counsel for the OPs stated that no other document/letter except original of Ex.R-8 could be traced and the record might be sent for comparison, if so desired.  Accordingly, vide order dated 29.7.2013, the disputed document Ex.R-8 alongwith the admitted signatures were ordered to be sent to the Director, CFSL, Chandigarh for comparison of the disputed and admitted signatures of Sh. Harmesh Singh, complainant. However, the CFSL sent a reply that they required few more admittedly genuine signatures. Thereafter, in accordance with the letter of the Director, CFSL, the disputed document alongwith affidavit dated 20.9.2012, original driving licence and specimen signatures filed by the complainant were sent to the Director, CFSL for comparison of the signatures. Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Scientist ‘B”, CFSL sent an examination report dated 23.1.2014 with a finding that the signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q1, A1 to A4 and S1 to S7  have been written by one and the same person.  In other words, he found the signature on the disputed document Ex.R-8 to be of the complainant.
11.         The complainant filed objections against the report of Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Scientist B, CFSL on 28.5.2014. The complainant also got examined the signature on the disputed document with his standard signatures/ photocopies of specimen signatures from Dr. Jassy Anand, Forensic expert and also submitted his report in accordance with which the disputed signature marked as Q1 on the letter to the Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 28.5.2012 has not been signed by him (complainant). On 28.5.2014, the complainant filed further objections alongwith his affidavit.
12.         The OPs filed reply to the objections on 3.7.2014.  It has been mentioned in the reply to the objections that it was on the application of the complainant that the original letter dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure C-6) was sent by this Forum to CFSL and now the complainant does not have any locus standi to file objections.  It has also been pleaded that the CFSL is a reputed Govt. organization having high repute and Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Scientist B has given his report after careful examination of the documents sent by the Forum and it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to challenge the report submitted by CFSL. 
13.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the objections to the report of CFSL, report by Dr. Jassy Anand and reply to the objections by the OPs.  In the instant case, the report of Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Scientist B is not supported by any affidavit.  In view of the law laid down in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi-2002 AIR (SC) 2931, in cases where cross examination of the persons who have filed affidavit is necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be given to the persons who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also obtained on affidavits.  In the instant case, since there is no affidavit of Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, therefore, the learned counsel for the complainant could not give the suggested questions for cross-examination to Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar. In Smt. Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma & Ors-(1973) 4 SCC 46 it has been held that evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed.  The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. The conclusions based upon mere comparison of a handwriting expert must at best be indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case.  In Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab-(1977) 2 SCC 210 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under :-

                        “Expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction.”

14.         We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down in the above rulings, the Courts should be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of hand writing expert. The science of handwriting is not a perfect science.  Furthermore, this type of evidence being opinion evidence, is by its very nature weak and infirm.  In the instant case, we feel that since there are two contradictory reports of experts, one against the complainant and one in favour of the complainant, and the evidence of handwriting expert unlike that of a finger print expert is generally of a frail character, we should not give any weight to the evidence of the handwriting experts.  The conclusions based upon mere comparison of a handwriting by Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Scientist B in this case are indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case.  It is no doubt true that this Forum cannot decide the complicated and complex questions of facts and law and the questions of fraud and cheating are also beyond the purview of summary jurisdiction. However, after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and ignoring the report of both the handwriting experts, we feel that on a close scrutiny the original of Annexure C-6/Ex.R-8 is found to be a fabricated document. This would be clear from the discussion that follows.
15.         It is worth noting that on receipt of the policy documents, the complainant was not at all satisfied and he made a specific request dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure C-2) to OP-2 that he was not in a position to continue the policies No.005546214 & 005544728. Therefore, he requested that the policies be cancelled and the above amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- (of this case) and Rs.51,000/- (pertaining to another policy) be paid to him.  It is the admitted case of the OPs that the acknowledgement slip Annexure C-3 was given to the complainant on 25.5.2012.  It is also admitted that free look cancellation request was submitted to the branch on 25.5.2012 i.e. within the free look period. The inference that the original of the letter dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure C-6/Ex.R-8) is fabricated is drawn firstly from the fact that the OPs in their letter dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure C-4) told the complainant that they were not in receipt of any concern towards the said policies No.005546214 & 005544728 within the free look period and they were unable to accede to the request of the complainant for any changes or cancellation of the policy.  Had the complainant sent any request vide letter dated 28.5.2012 that he rejected his previous complaint for cancellation of the policies and wanted to continue with his policies, it would have been mentioned in the letter dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure C-4) by the OPs that they had received the letter dated 28.5.2012 on account of which they had not processed the request of the complainant which was received within the free look period.  Thus, it warrants that the letter dated 28.5.2012 was manipulated afterwards.  Secondly, it is also noteworthy that though at the time of production of the letter Ex. R-8 before this Forum, the learned counsel for the OPs stated that no other document/ letter written by the complainant was traceable, yet on 22.2.2013, the learned counsel for the OPs made an application for additional evidence alongwith which he produced the copies of letters dated 29.6.2012 (Ex. R-9) and 21.7.2012 (Ex.R-10) sent by the complainant. The letter dated 29.6.2012 (Ex.R-9) shows that the complainant informed OP-2 that Mr. Ved Parkash Arora and Mr. Varun Saxena had played foul play on him. They contacted him on telephone and played fraud with him.  He made a request to cancel his policies No.005546214 & 005544728 and take action against them for playing fraud with him.  Again in his letter dated 21.7.2012 (Ex.R-10), the complainant mentioned that he had surrendered the policies on 25.5.2012 within the free look option period within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document. He further alleged that the same were sent back to him on 30.5.2012 through a messenger sent by Mr.V.R.Gulati of Funds release department.  He called him from a mobile on the pretext to keep the policy with him for 3-4 days and thereafter he stopped answering his calls and hence the free look period expired resulting in deliberately denying of his right.  He specifically alleged that he had been cheated twice by three employees of the firm namely S/Sh. Ved Prakash Arora, Varun Saxena and V.R. Gulati who seemed to be hand in glove with each other.  He also reiterated that he still stood by decision regarding cancellation of both the policies. 
16.         It is worth mentioning that in the letter Annexure C-4 sent on 13.7.2012 by the OPs, there is absolutely no mention of the letter dated 29.6.2012 sent by the complainant to the OPs. Furthermore, the OPs vide letter dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure C-5) admitted that free look cancellation request was submitted on 25.5.2012 within the free look period.  However, the same was not processed because of the letter dated 28.5.2012 sent by the complainant.  In the said letter, there is again no reference of the letters dated 29.6.2012 (Ex.R-9) and 21.7.2012 (Ex.R-10) sent by the complainant.  The letters Ex.R-9 and Ex.R-10 which were in possession of the OPs, are not a part of the pleadings because there is no mention of these letters in the written statement of the OPs. The OPs have not filed any affidavit of their employees namely S/Sh. Ved Prakash Arora, Varun Saxena and V.R. Gulati to disprove the contention of the complainant that he had surrendered the policies on 25.5.2012 but the same were sent back to him on 30.5.2012 through a messenger by Mr. V.R. Gulati. The OPs have not filed any affidavit regarding foul play of S/Sh. Ved Prakash Arora and Varun Saxena whose mobile numbers are given in the letter Ex.R-10. No doubt this Forum cannot go into the questions of cheating and fraud, yet it can certainly go into the question of unfair trade practice employed by the officers of the OPs. The complainant was 72 years old in the year 2012 and one can easily visualize his agony because he surrendered the insurance policy No.005546214 within the free look period but the officials of the OPs ensured that cancellation request made by the complainant is not processed.  Had the allegations in the letters Ex.R-9 and R-10 been found false by the OPs, they would have certainly mentioned in the letter dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure C-5) that the allegations of the complainant were enquired into and S/Sh. Ved Prakash Arora, Varun Saxena and V.R. Gulati were not found at fault. The omission on the part of the OPs to throw any light on the role of S/Sh. Ved Prakash Arora, Varun Saxena and V.R. Gulati shows that the OPs are trying to shield the misdeeds of their employees. Thirdly, the OPs in their letter dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure C-5) themselves wrote that if they do not receive reply within 8 weeks from the date of their response, the concern of the complainant would be considered as resolved. It means the complainant was further given 8 weeks time to send a reply to their response. Copy of the letter dated 5.9.2012  (Annexure C-7) received on 6.9.2012 by the Grievance Officer of the OPs show that the complainant specifically mentioned that he had not written the letter dated 28.5.2012  and he disowned it.  He asserted that since he was firm in his decision to discontinue his policies as per his letter dated 25.5.2012, he stood by it.  He mentioned that as he had returned the policies well within the free look period, his claim for the refund of the money was within the rules of the company/ OPs. Again no reply to the letter dated 5.9.2012 of the complainant was given by the OPs. It means the promise made in the letter dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure C-5) was also not honoured by the OPs. When the complainant had mentioned in his letter dated 5.9.2012 that he stood by his decision to discontinue his policies as per letter dated 22.5.2012, the OPs ought to have cancelled the policy of the complainant and refunded the amount to him.  However, this course was not adopted nor any enquiry was conducted against foul play by S/Sh. Ved Prakash Arora, Varun Saxena and V.R. Gulati. All these circumstances warrant an inference of unfair trade practice employed by the officials of the OPs.  We feel that a senior citizen of 72 years age was harassed by the officials of the OPs probably for meeting their targets. The complainant shouted from the rooftop that a mischief was played upon him and he stood by his decision of cancellation of the policies, yet his assertions fell on deaf ears of the officials of the OPs and/or they conveniently ignored the same.  The evidence on record is a clear pointer towards unfair trade practice employed by the officials of the OPs. 
17.         We may mention that the OPs have referred to some rulings in their written reply in support of their contention that the complaint is not maintainable.  However, after analyzing the factual position in this case, since there is positive evidence of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, we are of the view that the complaint is maintainable and this Forum has jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
18.         For the reasons recorded above, the objections of the complainant against the report of the hand writing expert are allowed to the extent mentioned above. After having considered various aspects of the case discussed above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.1,99,996.29 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till realization by the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice.
    3. To pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant towards costs of litigation.
19.         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter the OPs shall pay the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization by the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs.
20.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11.02.2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President