Consumer Complaint No. 186 of 2014
Date of filing: 25.9.2014 Date of disposal: 16.9.2016
Complainant: Prasenjit Roy, S/o. Late Shanti Kumar Roy, resident of Kalna Road, PO. Burdwan, PS: Burdwan Sadar, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101, W.B.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at City Tower, 2nd Floor, Burdwan, PIN – 713 101, service through its Branch Manager.
2. Bhandrai Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., authorized service centre of Tata Motors, having its office at G. T. Road, Fagupur, Burdwan, service through its Branch Manager.
3. Cholamondalam Investment Finance Ltd., having its office at Om Towers, 5th Floor, 46, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700 071, service through its Manager.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh & Rumania Bagchi Ghosh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Sovan Kumar.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3: None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OP-1 as the OP-1 has arbitrarily and illegally settled his legitimate insurance claim on false pretext at a vary lower amount.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being the owner of the vehicle being registration number WB-41-G-4394, chassis number-MAT453132DF18468 and engine number-497TC96FWY830945. The Complainant purchased the said vehicle for earning his livelihood from the OP-2 under hypothecation by the OP-3. The vehicle was insured with the OP-1 for the period from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2014. But very unfortunately on 08.10.2013 at evening hours said vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident and for this reason the vehicle got damage severely. Thereafter the Complainant deputed the damaged vehicle at the service centre of the OP-2 being an authorised service centre of Tata Motors for repairing. The OP-2 assessed the estimate amounting to Rs.89, 875=00 for repairing of the said vehicle. After getting the estimated amount the Complainant lodged claim before the OP-1 after submitting all documents in accordance with the terms and conditions through the OP-2. The said vehicle has already been repaired and ready for delivery by the OP-2, but the OP-1 did not settle the claim lodged by the Complainant. So the Complainant sent a letter dated 30.12.2013 to the OP-1 requesting to settle the claim as early as possible as the vehicle has already been repaired by the OP-2 and until and unless the estimated amount of Rs.89,875=00 is settled towards repairing charges, the Complainant cannot be able to release the said vehicle from the OP-2.Very surprisingly the OP-1 after receiving the said letter dated 30.12.2013 from the Complainant settled the claim at Rs.44,545=00 towards the accidental repairing charges of the vehicle on non-standard basis. The OP-2 sent a letter dated 17.01.2014 to the Complainant stating that the OP-1 has settled the claim for Rs.44, 545=00 against the said vehicle and request was made by the OP-2 to pay the rest amount of Rs.45, 330=00 to it and to take delivery of the vehicle from the workshop of the OP-2 as early as possible. Upon receipt of the letter dated 17.01.2014 from the OP-2 the Complainant requested the OP-1 to settle the remaining amount of Rs.45,330=00 so that the Complainant can take delivery of the vehicle from the workshop of the OP-2, but till filing of this complaint the OP-1 did not settle the claim and as a result of which the vehicle is still lying in OK condition at the workshop of the OP-2 and the Complainant has been facing huge loss in each and every day for not plying the vehicle on the road. The Complainant requested the OP-1 on several occasions to settle the remaining amount of Rs.45, 330=00 towards accidental repairing charges of the vehicle, but till date not a single response came from the end of the OP-1 which clearly indicates deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1. The Complainant has made the OP-3 a party in this case with a prayer before this Ld. Forum just to stay the payment of EMI of the hypothecated vehicle because due to negligence and carelessness of the OP-1 the Complainant could not ply the vehicle on the road and had to face huge financial loss on each and every day. Finding no other alternative to get relief and being compelled the Complainant has filed this complaint before this Ld. Forum praying for direction upon the OPs to make payment of Rs.45,330=00 towards remaining repairing cost of the damaged vehicle, Rs.40,000=00 as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version contending that the claim is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as the vehicle was goods vehicle and admittedly the same was purchased for commercial purpose. The insurance policy was valid from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2014, issued in favour of the Complainant by covering the risk by this OP subject to certain terms, conditions and stipulations. From the policy it appears that the gross weight of the vehicle is 7490 kgs. Damage of the insured vehicle due to accident was duly intimated by the Complainant and the Complainant was asked for several documents. Several documents were produced. As the permit of the vehicle was not produced by the insured the claim has been settled on non-standard basis and the same was intimated to the Complainant and the service centre accordingly. It is pertinent to mention that as per assessment the total amount of parts was of Rs.50,242.33 total assessment of labour was of Rs.24,500=00 and hence net amount came at Rs.74,742.33 and a compulsory expenses was deducted for Rs.500=00 and as the permit was not produced 40% was deducted for settlement on non-standard basis. After that the settlement amount of Rs.44, 544=00 has been paid to the OP-2 being the repairer of the vehicle. As the permit of the vehicle was not produced by the insured the claim was settled on non-standard basis. It is submitted by the OP-1 that after perusing the document the claim was settled on non-standard basis as the Complainant has failed to produce the permit. So there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of this OP. The vehicle was being used in public place by violating the terms and conditions of the policy and provision of the Motor Vehicle Act. According to the OP-1 a wrongdoer cannot be entitled to get any relief. In this regard the OP-1 has submitted that another vehicle of the Complainant got damage due to accident, claim was lodged, but due to plying without any permit the same was repudiated. Against such repudiation the Complainant has also filed another complaint which has been registered as Consumer Complaint no-183/2014. The Complainant knowing very well that he is not entitled to get any relief has filed the case alleging frivolous allegations against this OP. Therefore on that score this complaint is liable to be rejected with cost u/S. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-2 by filing written version contending that this OP is an authorized dealer and service centre at Burdwan of Tata Motors Limited and also a renowned public and commercial vehicle manufacturing company. The Complainant purchased the subject vehicle from this OP and the same was brought at the OP-2 in damaged condition on 18.10.2013 for which a quotation amounting to Rs.89, 875=00 was issued to the Complainant and as per the request and instruction of the Complainant necessary papers were submitted to the representative of the OP-1. The said vehicle was hypothecated with the OP-3 and insured with the OP-1 under an insurance policy which was valid for the period from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2014 (midnight). Thereafter as per the telephonic approval of the appointed surveyor of the OP-1 the repairing work was undertaken on 19.11.2013. The repairing job was completed on 07.12.2013 and the same was intimated both the Complainant as well as the Insurance Company. This OP has requested the Complainant to get release of the vehicle from the workshop as early as possible. However on 26.12.2013 this OP received a sum of Rs.44, 545=00 from the OP-1. On 16.01.2014 this OP gave further reminder to the Complainant to pay the balance cost of the repairing cost i.e. Rs.45,330=00 as the total cost of repairing was for Rs.89,875=00 as estimated earlier. But the Complainant did not get the vehicle released from the workshop of this OP on payment of the rest amount of repairing charges. Further reminder was issued. Ultimately the Complainant visited the service centre of the OP-2 on 14.02.2014 and on inspection of the said vehicle he executed one satisfaction note and upon making payment of the balance amount got the vehicle released. This OP has no role against settlement of the claim on non-standard basis. The Complainant has made this OP as a party in this proceeding unnecessarily because within the four corners of the complaint no allegation has been made out by him against this OP. Prayer is made by the OP-2 for dismissal of the complaint against it with exemplary cost.
After admission of this complaint notices were issued upon the OPs through the office of this Ld. Forum and all the OPs have appeared through their respective Ld. Counsel by filing Vokalatnama, but the OP-3 chose not to contest the petition of complaint by filing written version though on several occasions time has been prayed for. Therefore the Ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for argument ex parte against the OP-3.
At the very outset it is to be mentioned that on 18.02.2016 as per the petition of the Complainant the OP-1 was directed for production of the surveyor’s report for proper adjudication of this complaint. Thereafter, though several opportunities were given to the OP-1 for production of the said report, but the OP-1 has failed to produce the survey report before this Forum. Under this situation no further time was granted the Ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for final argument.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with several documents in support of his contention. The OP-1 has relied on the Sections of 66 & 87 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and filed the Xerox copies of those relevant Sections. The OP-1 and the Complainant have placed reliance on some rulings respectively and filed the same.
In respect of the plea of the OP-1 as mentioned in the written version that as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, the complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum, we are to say ‘that hiring of services of the Insurance Company by taking insurance policy by the Complainant who is carrying on commercial activities cannot not be held to be a commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils. There is no question of trading or carrying on commerce in insurance policies by the insured. May be that insurance coverage is taken for commercial activity carried out by the insured................... In this view of the matter, taking of the insurance policy is for protection of the interest of the assured in the articles or goods and not for making any profit or trading for carrying on commercial purpose.................... The contract is one of indemnity and, therefore, insured can recover the actual amount of loss.’ (M/s. Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Company Limited). Therefore the plea as taken by the OP-1 has no merit at all.
Firstly, we are to see as to whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP-2 or not. We have noticed that the OP-2 is an authorised dealer and service centre of Tata Motors and which used to manufacture passenger and commercial vehicle. The Complainant purchased the questioned vehicle from it against payment of consideration amount. After the accident as the insured vehicle got severe damage the vehicle was brought by the Complainant before the OP-2 for its necessary repairing and after examining the vehicle the OP-2 placed an estimate towards the cost for repairing. As the insurance claim of the Complainant was settled by the OP-1 on non-standard basis, the OP-2 did not get the entire estimated cost from the OP-1 and requested the Complainant by issuing several letters to make payment of the remaining amount and to take delivery of the repaired vehicle. The OP-2 had to incur expenditure to the tune of Rs.89, 875=00 towards the repairing cost of the damaged vehicle, but the OP-1 paid a sum of Rs.44, 545=00 to the OP-2 towards repairing cost. The balance amount was not paid by the OP-2, as the claim was settled on non-standard basis @60% of the claimed amount. At last after making written correspondences the Complainant paid the balance amount to the OP-2 and took delivery of the repaired vehicle from it. It is seen by us that in the petition of complaint no whisper is made by the Complainant against the OP-2 alleging deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice against it and no relief has been sought for from the OP-2, hence in our view the complaint is liable to be dismissed on contest against the OP-2 without any cost as we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-2.
Secondly, we are to adjudicate as to whether there is any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice of the OP-3 or not. Admittedly inspite of its appearance by filing Vokalatnama the OP-3 did not turn up and chose not to contest the petition of complaint by filing written version. It is evident from the record that there is one hypothecation agreement by and between the Complainant and the OP-3 as during purchase of the vehicle the Complainant obtained financial assistance from the OP-3, so the questioned vehicle is hypothecated with the OP-3. The Complainant has made the OP-3 as a party in this proceeding with a view to avoid the complication of non-joinder of necessary party. It is true that no allegation has been made out against this OP within the four corners of the complaint and no relief sought for from it. We have also noticed there is no role of the OP-3 in respect of settlement of the insurance claim of the Complainant on non-standard basis. Therefore as there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against this OP, in our view the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this OP-3 ex parte without any cost.
Now we are to adjudicate the most vital issue as to whether there is any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice of the OP-1 or not. Admittedly the Complainant’s questioned vehicle was under the coverage of an insurance policy obtained from the OP-1 which was valid for the period from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2014. During validity of the insurance policy on 08.10.2013 the said vehicle met with an accident at evening hours for which the vehicle got severe damage. The damaged vehicle was brought at the OP-2 being an authorized service centre of Tata Motors for repairing, the OP-2 gave an estimate amounting to Rs.89,875=00 towards repairing cost of the damaged vehicle, the OP-1 was intimated about the incident, insurance claim was lodged by the Complainant before the OP-1 along with several documents, surveyor was deputed by the OP-1, report may be submitted, but it is not forthcoming, the OP-1 has settled the claim of the Complainant on non-standard basis i.e. @60% of the claimed amount the ground that on the date of occurrence the vehicle did not have any valid permit, several requests was made by the Complainant for settlement of the claim entirely in favour of the him, but to no effect, The vehicle has been repaired by the OP-2, The OP-1 paid a sum of Rs.44,545=00 to the OP-2 for repairing charges of the insured vehicle out of the claim amount of Rs.89,875=00, after receipt of the said amount from the OP-1 the OP-2 requested the Complainant to make payment of the remaining amount by issuing written correspondences, as the OP-1 settled the claim @60% of the claimed amount based on non-standard basis the Complainant requested the OP-1 to make payment of the balance amount, as the OP-1 did not pay the remaining amount, the Complainant by making payment of the balance amount took delivery of his vehicle from the OP-2 . The allegation of the Complainant is that the OP-1 has settled his legitimate insurance claim arbitrarily and illegally on flimsy pretext. During hearing the ld. Counsel has attracted our notice that on the date of accident there was valid route permit relating to the said vehicle and relying on the annexure-7 it is submitted that as till the date of accident the Complainant did not get permanent valid route permit relating to the said vehicle he has applied for temporary route permit upon making payment of due consideration before the Motor Vehicle Department, Burdwan. Annexure-7 reveals that admittedly the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 540=00 for temporary route permit for using the vehicle only on 08.01.2013. Anenxure-7 is the money receipt which reveals that he paid the said amount for getting temporary route permit for one day, but no paper relating to the route permit i.e. whether the M.V. Department has allowed his application or not/allowing his application has delivered the route permit to the Complainant or not, no such document is submitted by him. In connection of such submission it is seen by us that in the petition of complaint no case has been made out by the Complainant about temporary route permit. Document reveals that he paid for valid and permanent route permit to the M.V. Department, Burdwan on 06.11.2013 which was issued by the said Department on 22.11.2013 for the period from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018. In respect of the temporary route permit the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has argued that on the date of accident he had valid temporary route permit as the annexure-7 reveals. In this connection we are to say that the annexure- 7 reveals that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 540=00 to the concerned Department, Burdwan for getting temporary route permit for that day only i.e. 08.10.2013 at about 2:16 p.m., and the alleged accident took place at evening hours on 08.10.2013. Therefore, before the said accident payment was made by the Complainant at about 2:16 p.m. for getting temporary permit from the concerned Authority. So, it is crystal clear that during accident of the questioned vehicle though there was valid temporary route permit as the payment was made for obtaining the same, but no route permit was issued by the concerned Authority for the day inspite of taking proper fees from the insured. It is true that the Surveyor’s report has not been filed by the OP-1 and therefore it is very difficult for us to hold that whether the temporary route permit was submitted by the Complainant or not at the time of lodgement of the claim form. The Complainant has submitted that he used to make payment on regular basis for taking temporary permit on daily basis. But in respect of such submission the Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 has attracted to the Section 87 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 from where it is evident that
87. Temporary permits-
(1) Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period which shall, not any case exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily-
- For conveyance of passengers on special occasion such as to and from fairs and religious gathering, or
- For the purposes of seasonal business, or
- To meet a particular need, or
- Pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit………….
In the petition of complaint the Complainant has mentioned that for earning his livelihood he purchased the vehicle. Therefore, what prompted the Complainant to get temporary permit for four months at a time, but the Complainant used to get temporary permit on daily basis by making payment. In the M.V. Act, 1998 no provision has been mentioned that permit can be granted on daily basis and for taking the same payment should be made on the said date only, not before. The Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 has also relied on the Section 66 of M.V. Act, 1998, wherein it is mentioned that
66. The necessary for permits:-
(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed Authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. ………………
Therefore it is clear to us that route permit is very much necessary during plying of any vehicle on road in view of the above-mentioned Section of the Motor vehicle Act, 1988. But in the instant case the Complainant has failed to show us that on the date of occurrence the vehicle had valid route permit and for this reason the OP-1 was pleased to settle the insurance claim of the Complainant on non-standard basis i.e. @60% of the claimed amount. The OP-1 has relied on several judgments i.e. 2016 (1) CPR (NC) 172 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Meenakshi Jarial, decided on 15.12.2015, wherein it has been held that claims are not payable if there is no valid registration certificate, fitness certificate or route permit for vehicle. The OP-1 has also placed its reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Toofani Hati, decided on 20.04.2015, reported in 2015 (2) CPR (NC) 422, wherein it has been held that plying of vehicle without permit violates terms and conditions of the policy. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & others, decided on o4.09.2014, reported in (2014) 3 (CPR) (SC) 609, it has been held by Their Lordships that using a vehicle on public road without any registration is a fundamental breach of trust and conditions of policy contract. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to refer the judgment passed by Their Lordships in the case of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2010 (4) SCC (536). In this respect the Ld. Counsel for Complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in 2008 (7) SBR 63. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has put much emphasis on the paragraph no-11 of the Nitin’s case (supra). Relying on the judgment of Amalendu Shaoo’s case (supra) the ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that in that judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that if there is any breach of contract, the claim should be allowed on non- standard basis i.e. 75% the claim amount. We have carefully perused the judgment of Nitin’s case (supra). It is seen by us that in the paragraph no-11 Their Lordships have mentioned the cases of Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 420 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar’s case in the paragraphs-9 & 10 has been observed which run as follows-
“9. The question then is: can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the Company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.
10. It is the case of the parties that the fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act, or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the Appellant.”
12. Similarly, in Swaran Singh’s case (supra), this Court has held as under:
“If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.”
Having regard to the aforementioned observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jitendra Kumar as well as Swaran Singh in our view the said observations are applicable in the case in hand because in the instant complaint admittedly the insured vehicle of the Complainant got severe damage due to road accident and it is also true that at the time of accident the vehicle did not possess any valid route permit either temporary or permanent whatever it may be, but for getting temporary route permit money was deposited, no paper was issued relating to the route permit. According to the OP-1 as during accident there was no valid route permit of the questioned vehicle the claim was settled on non-standard basis. In respect of the ‘accident’ and ‘no valid route permit’ we are to say that the OP-1 did not prove by adducing cogent evidence that there was nexus by and between the accident and no valid route permit. Therefore in view of the observation as mentioned above (Jitendra’s case & Swanran Singh’s case) the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning route permit.
Be it mentioned that the judgments on which the Op-1 has placed their reliance, in those judgments Nitin’s case (supra), Jitendra’s case (supra) and Swaran Singh’s (supra) case have not been referred.
Admittedly, the OP-1 had settled the claim of the Complainant on no-standard basis @60% of the claimed amount. Out of the estimated amount towards repairing cost of Rs.89, 875=00 the Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.44, 545=00 towards the repairing charges of the damaged insured vehicle. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Nitin Khandelwal we have noticed that settlement of any claim on non-standard basis means 75% of the claimed amount. Therefore as the OP-1 paid 60% of the claimed amount, now the OP-1 is under obligation to make payment of balance 15% of the claimed amount to the Complainant. As out of Rs.89, 875=00 the OP-1 paid Rs.44, 545=00 to the OP-2 directly, hence the OP-1 shall pay the balance amount of Rs.45, 330=00 to the Complainant as the Complainant upon making payment of the said amount to the OP-2 took delivery of the repaired vehicle from it. Admittedly as the grievance of the Complainant had not been redressed by the OP-1 before coming to the Court of Law and for a considerable period the Complainant had to face mental agony, financial stringency and harassment due to deficiency in service of the OP-1, hence the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OP-1 and by filing this complaint undoubtedly the Complainant had to incur some expenses, so the Complainant is also entitled to get some litigation cost from the OP-1.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint be dismissed on contest without any cost against the OP-2, dismissed ex parte without any cost against the OP-3 and allowed on contest with cost. The OP-1 is directed to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.45, 330=00 (Rs. Forty five thousand three hundred and thirty) only to the Complainant within 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the abovementioned amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. for the default period. The OP-1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2, 000=00 (Rs. Two thousand) only towards compensation due to harassment, mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1,000=00 (Rs. One thousand) only to the Complainant within 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provision of Law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
