The instant complaint case has been filed by the complainant Nalin Bilochan Jha, Proprietor M/s Aayan ,Thana Road, Dumka against the opposite parties namely (I) Branch manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Dumka. (II) Senior divisional manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bhagalpur (iii) Sri Ajay Kumar Ojha, Surveyor, C/o P.N. Singh House No- 32, Road No - 3 , East Patel Nagar, Patna and (IV) Branch manager, the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shyam Plaza, Sindhia Chowk, Dumka U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for illegally, arbitrarily and dishonestly not settling the claim for more than four years and thereby causing heavy loss approximately Rs.8,00,000/-(Eight lac) to the complainant’s business and this act of O.P’s insurance company amounted to negligency, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.P’s to pay a sum of Rs.4,58,050/- (Four lac fifty eight thousand fifty) towards the principal amount of the stolen Laptops, further direct to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lac) towards compensation amount occasioned due to harassment agony, loss and damages caused to him and further also direct to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation and thus in total claimed Rs.7,83,050/- (Seven lac eighty three thousand and fifty ).The complainant has further prayed to direct O.P’s to pay interest @18% on the awarded amount from the date incident of theft of laptops i.e 02.09.2012 till its payment.
2. The brief facts of the case as revealed from a complainant petition,documents annexed therein as well as written notes of argument are as follows :-
That the complainant is the proprietor/ owner of a shop named and styled as M/s Aayan, Thana Road, Dumka and used to deal in Laptop’s. The said business of the complainant was financed by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dumka branch and insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd; Dumka branch covering risk arising out of burglary for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-,Shop keeper’s insurance policy for sum assured of Rs.8,00,000/-and standared fire and special peril for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-in toral of Rs.18,00,000/- in respect of his firm m/s Aayan, Thana Road,Dumka. The complainant has taken its capital from the aforesaid bank by taking loan of Rs.10,00,000/- ( Ten lac) and the said bank directed complainant to take insurance under the Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd. The complainant used to deposit insurance installments regularly through his financer bank without any dealy.
The further case of the complainant is that in the night of 01/02-09-2012 an incident of burglary took place in the said shop in which 19 (Nineteen) new Laptop’s and 03 (Three) old Laptop where stolen by cutting shutter of the shop. The information about the said incident of theft was given to Dumka P.S. which was registered as Dumka (Town) P.S. case no-129/2012, dated 02.09.2012 under sec-395 I.P.C. The details of the stolen Laptops are mentioned in para-7(i) to7 (iii) of the complaint petition. The police during investigation found the occurrence of theft of Laptop’s as true and correct but no clue was found hence submitted final from in the court of C.J.M. Dumka, which was accepted by the court in lok Adalat.
The further case of the complainant is that the information about the incident of theft was reported to Oriental Insurance Comp. ltd. as well as to the financer Oriental Bank of commerce and prayed to settle the claim at the earliest. The O. P. Insurance Company deputed a surveyor before whom the complainant produced all the relevant papers including purchase vouchers of the stolen Laptop’s. The complainant submitted duly filled claim form to the insurance company but despite passing away of four year’s O.P’s insurance company neither settled the Insurance amount nor arranged to pay the same. Thereafter, complainant requested O.P’s by sending a legal notices on 30.01.2013 but O.P’s did not reply and thereby committed negligency and deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practices. The complainant was put to heavy loss and also sustained mental agony etc. by the act the O. P’s. The complainant having found no alternative filed this case for redressal of his grievance before this Forum on 16.04.2013.
3. Having received notices O.P.No.1 and 2 i.e Oriental Insurance Comp. ltd. appeared and filed show-cause on 12.11.2013, whereas O.P.No-4 i.e Oriental Bank of commerce, dumka branch appeared and filed show-cause on 17.09.2014.However O.P. No-3 i.e. Surveyor Ajay Kumar Ojha did not appear despite service of notice hence case proceeded exparte against him.
4. The O.P No.1 and 2 i.e. the Oriental Insurance Comp.ltd. in their joint written statement dated-12.11.2013 and written notes of argument dated 22.06.2018 have admitted that the complainant has been carring business in Laptop’s in the name and style as M/s Aayan at Thana Road, Dumka and the said shop was hypothecated with Oriental Bank of Commerce Bank, Dumka branch and was insured with the answering O.P’s i.e Oriental Insurance Company, Dumka branch vide policy No.332401/48/2012/1290/SKI valid from dated 18.03.2012 to 17.03.2013and stocks of the shop covered and insured for Rs.8,00,000/-(Eight lac) only in respect of all types of electronic goods i.e.T.V, Computer etc. It is further admitted that in the said shop occurrence of theft took place in the night of 1/2-09-2012 at 12. Night and the complainant lodged F.I.R. vide no-129/12 dated 02.09.2012 u/s-379 I.P.C in the Town P.S., Dumka. It has further been admitted that on receiving telephonic information about the occurrence of theft dated 02.09.2012 as well as letter dated 03.09.2012 of the complainant this answering Insurance Company deputed Shri A.K. Jana a surveyor to conduct the preliminary survey who visited the complainants shop for survey on 02.09.2013 and submitted preliminary report dated 21.09.2012 stating that the alleged occurrence was suspicious in nature hence cannot be believed. The further case of this answering O.P’s is that vide letter dated 03.09.2012 claim form was sent to the complainant requesting to submit the same after duly filled up along with required papers but neither any reply nor any documents submitted by the complainant and subsequently despite reminder dated 11.09.2012 and 24.09.2012 the complainant did not reply and also failed to submit required documents of the claim. The further case of this answering O.P’s is that on 14.09.2012 Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha, surveyor of Patna was also deputed to conduct final survey as well as for assessment of loss, who visited the complainant shop on 15.09.2012 and conducted final survey but again the complainant did not submit the required documents before him despite his letters dated 29.10.2012, 20.11.2012, 17.01.2013 and 20.02.2013 regarding submission of documents and due to this non co-operative attitude of the complainant final survey could not be completed .It is alleged that due to non co-operative attitude of the complainant towards preliminary and final surveyors and as the police investigation could not concluded the claim of the complainant remain under serious doubt and hence the matter still lying pending. It is claimed that there is no negligency or deficiency in service on the part of this answering O.P’s and as the claim of the complainant is premature on hence not tenable in law. It is further claimed that the complainant has given imaginary amount of claim which is not consistent with the terms and condition of the insurance policy and hence denied by this O.P’s .It is also claimed that the statements made in Para 9 and 10 of the complaint petition are wholly wrong and hence denied accordingly claimed that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and this complaint is fit to be dismissed .
5. The case of the O.P.no-4 the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of commerce, Dumka is that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P and the complainant has no cause of action against this O.P. besides there is no negligency and deficiency in services nor any unfair trade practices on the part of this O.P. It is admitted that this O.P had financed Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lac) to the complainant for carrying business of computer, Laptops etc. and the complainant said shop was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd, Dumka branch and this answering O.P. has been paying regularly insurance premium. The said Insurance company issued three types of insurance policy (i) sum-assured of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lac) towards burglary,(ii) Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lac) towards the shopkeeper insurance and (iii) Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lac) towards standard fire and special perils. It is further admitted that in the night of 1/2.09.2012 occurrence of theft took place in the complainants shop in which all the articles lying in said the shop were stolenway and for that Dumka (town) P.S. case No-129/2012 was lodged. The complainant then informed to the Insurance Company upon which the Insurance Company deputed surveyor, who investigated the matter and the complainant on demand furnished all the documents to the insurance company but the O.P’s insurance company did not release the insurance amount. However this answering O.P has denied all the allegation mentioned in the complaint petition.. It has claimed that as there in no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. hence this case be dismissed against the same.
6. The respective parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support their case.
The complainant in support of his case have examined himself as C.W-1 Nalin Bilochan Jha and has also has adduced following documentary evidence;-
Ext.1- Photocopy of Insurance certificate policy;
Ext.2- Photocopy of Loan agreement;
Ext.3- Photocopy of Bank balance sheet on 31 march 2011;
Ext.4- Photocopy of premium receipt;
Ext.5- Photocopy of F.I.R;
Ext.6- Photocopy of claim application;
Ext.7(i)-Photocopy of complainant letter dated 03.10.2012 to the
Oriental Insurance company,ltd, Dumka;
Ext.7(ii) Computerized letter of Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. to the M/s Aayan, Thana Road, Dumka complainant dated 03.09.2012;
Ext.7(iii) Computerized letter of Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd to the M/s Aayan ,Thana Road,Dumka dated 11.09.2012;
Ext.7(iv)Computerized letter of Ajay Kumar Ojha ,surveyor to the M/s Aayan, Thana Road, Dumka, dated 17.01.2013;
Ext.7(v) Computerized letter of Oriental Insurance Comp Ltd. to the M/s Aayan, Thana Road, Dumka, dated 18.01.2013;
Ext.7(vi) Computerized letter of Ajay Kumar Ojha, Surveyor to the M/s Aayan, Thana Road, Dumka, dated 17.01.2013;
Ext.7(vii) Photocopy of hand written letter of A.K.Ojha surveyor to the M/s Aayan, Thana Road, Dumka.
Ext.8 (i) Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer
addressed to Branch manager, the oriental bank of
commerce, Dumka dated 20.02.2013;
Ext.8(ii) Photocopy of legal notice from the complainant Lawyer addressed to the Ajay Kumar Ojha, surveyor dated 20.02.2013;
Ext.8(iii)Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer addressed to the Senior Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bhagalpur;
Ext.8(iv) Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer addressed to the Branch manager ,the Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd, Dumka dated 20.02.2013.
Ext.8(v) Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer to Ajay Kumar Ojha, Surveyor, Patna dated 31.01.2013;
Ext.8(vi) Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer addressed to the Senior Reginal Manager, the Oriental; Insurance Comp. Ltd,Bhagalpur dated 30.01.2013;
Ext.8(vii) Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer to the Branch manager, the Oriental Insurance Comp .Ltd, Dumka, dated 30.01.2013;
Ext.8(viii) Photocopy of legal notice of the complainants Lawyer addressed to the Branch Manager,The Oriental Bank of commerce ,Dumka dated 30.01.2013;
Ext.9- Photocopy of protest petition against the survey report dated 29.02.2016;
Ext.9 (i) Photocopy of origin-infotel invoice dated 26.09.2012;
Ext.9(ii) to 9(viii) Photocopy of Origin-Infotel invoice dated 23.07.2012,26.07.2012,23.07.2012,21.08.2012, 10.08.2012, 07.06.2012 and 10.07.2012.
Ext.10 (i) to (vi) Photocopies of F.I.R, written report, entire order sheet of G.R.No-1062/2012.
Ext.11- Photocopy of Bank stock statement dated 17.11.2013 from 05.03.2012 to 11.03.2013.
On the other hand O.P.No-1 and 2 have adduced only documentary evidence, which have been marked exhibits as follows:-
Ext.A- Copy of Survey report of A.K.Ojha ,Surveyor dated 11.07.2015;
Ext.A/1 Copy of final survey report of A. K. Ojha ,dated 23.05.2017;
Ext.B- Copy of preliminary survey report dated 21.09.2012 of Shri A.K.Jana,surveyor and loss assesser;
Ext.C- Copy of letter dated 03.09.2012 of Branch Manager,the Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd, Dumka to the M/s Ayan,Thana Road Dumka;
Ext.D-Copy of letter dated 11.09.2012 of Branch Manager , The Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd Dumka to M/s Aayan, Dumka;
Ext.E- Copy of letter dated 24.09.2012 of Branch manager,the Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd, Dumka to M/s Aayan, Dumka;
Ext.F- Copy of letter dated 29.10.2012 of Shri A.K.Ojha , surveyor and loss assesser, Patna to the M/s Aayan, Dumka;
Ext.G- Copy of letter dated 17.01.2013 of Shri A.K. Ojha, surveyor loss assessor ,Patna to the M/s Aayan, Dumka;
Ext.H- Copy of Shopkeepers Insurance policy
On the other hand no any oral or documentary evidence has been lead on behalf of O.P.No-0 i.e the olriental Bank of Commerce, Dumka branch .
7. We have examined the entire material on the record and given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced before us.
8. The only point for discussion is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed for?
F I N D I N G S
9. The admitted position of the case is that the compalainant has been carrying business in the name as style as M/s Aayan at Thana Road , Dumka and the shop was hypothecated with the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Dumka branch (O.P No-4) and it was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, Dumka branch (O.P.No-1) covering risk arising out of burglary etc. .It is also an admitted fact that in the night of 1/2-09-2012 occurrence of theft took place in the said shop of the complainant. Initially the complainant did not give details regarding theft of laptops in the complaint petition rather it has enclosed copy of F.I.R. in which it was alleged that in total 19 new laptop’s and 03 old laptop’s were stolen way but as the details of 02 new laptop’s were not available at time of lodging of F.I.R. hence only details of 17 new laptop’s were mentioned. It is also an admitted fact that later vide amendment dated 09.01.2018 complainant incorporated the description of remaining two new laptops giving serial no and purchase invoice no and discrepancies were corrected.
On the other hand the contesting O.P’s i.e the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd has asserted that the complainant while lodging F.I.R suppressed the material facts including invoice etc. hence, correct correct assessment of the claim could not be made and later in view of the court’s order dated 26.01.2017 surveyor A.K. Ojha, Patna on the basis of Photocopies of 18 laptops and tax invoices submitted his report dated 23.05.2017 which has been marked as Ext-A/1 and the previous survey report of the said surveyor has been marked as Ext. A. It has further been asserted that surveyor A.K. Ojha on examination and verification in his final report (Ext.A/1) found that invoice of only 12 laptop’s could tally in place of 17 laptop’s and lastly on the basis of details of laptops provided the surveyor in his report ( Ext-A/1)found loss of only Rs.1,85,913/- Further .the said surveyor also found that the insured had fraudulently misrepresented serial nos of alleged burgled laptops hence insurer may repudiate the claim in accordance with General condition 08 shopkeepers insurance policy. Therefore the basis of the surveyor’s report (ExtA/1) and as the complainant did not submit required documents to the surveyor rather acted fraudulently by misrepresenting related serial no of the alleged burgled laptops hence, his claim was rightly been rejected by the answering O.P. insurance Company.
10. Now we will examine the assertions of the parties in view of the documents available of the record. We have carefully examined i.e Ext.10 , F.I.R. and from its perusal appears that the complainant alleged in his written report about theft of 19 new laptops and 03 old laptops whereas the details of model no and serial no of only 17 laptop’s are mentioned in it ( written report) and it has been also alleged that serial no of 02 new laptops are not available at this time hence the same not mentioned. However, admittedly later the details of remaining 02 laptops were furnished to the surveyor and insurance company accordingly the same were brought on the complaint petition vide amendment dated 09.01.2018. It is evident from Para-7(i) of the amended complaint petition that the details of 02 new laptops are Lenovo-G-570 bearing serial no. CB 15131595 and CB 15902650 which also found place in purchase invoice no-01735 dated 26 July 2012 (Ext 9(i)) along with other burgled laptops. Further from Para-7(ii) of the amended complaint petition it appears that there was some omission in the description of laptops of Levono.Z-580 at serial no-2 of the F.I.R. The serial no CB 15902572 appears to be the number of Lenovo-G-570 and instead letter C, the letter Q was written in the F.I.R. due to mistake however, and the same is mentioned in purchase invoice no 01690 dated 23 July2012 vide (Ext-9(ii)) and as such the mistake have been properly explained. It further appears that in serial no of laptops under model Levono-G-570 number of laptops has reached to 14 by adding description of two new laptop CB15131595 and (ii) CB15902650 as model Levono.G-570 which were not mentioned in the F.I.R. and 01 laptop having serial no CB15902572 which was inadvertently mentioned under model no Levono-Z-580 due to omission of the letter ‘Q’ in place of letter ‘C’. Thus, the details of the 14 new laptops under model .Levono-G-570 has been properly explained by the complainant on the basis of document. Further more from perusal of Para-7(iii) of the amended complaint petition it appears that under the model DELL INSPIRON 15 R serial no- JWDSWTI at serial no-2 some mistakes had occurred in the F.I.R. as the correct serial no is JWD3MTI.Which tallies with the purchase bill no 00948 dated 7.06.2012 ( vide Ext.9(vii). However, bill in respect of laptop mentioned at serial no.3 of DELL INSPIRON 15 R i.e.5M53 TV4 could not be produced by the complainant hence from the aforesaid documents figure of burgled laptops comes to 18 only out of which Lenovo G 570 are proved to be 14 innumber, Levono Z-580 is 01 in number , DELl INSPIRON 15 R is 02 in number and DELl INSPIRON- 14R is 01 in number . It is also evident from Ext-9(i) that serial no of 14 pieces of laptop’s of Levono.G-570 has been tallied against the invoice No.01735 dated 06 July 2012 and invoice no-1690 dated 23 July 2012Ext 9(ii) . Further serial no of laptop of n Lenovo-Z-580 1piece is mentioned in bill no 02124 dated 21.08.2012 Ext-9(v) and similarly serial no of laptop of DELL INSPIRON 15R-2 pieces. are mentioned in bill no 0961 and 00984 dated 07.06.2012 (vide Ext-9-(vi)) and 9(vii), further also laptops at serial no-4 in the DELL INSPIRON 14 R –one piece is mentioned in the bill no. 01476 dated 10.07.2012 (vide Ext.9-(viii)).
10. It further appears from perusal of survey report of surveyor (Ext.A/1) that the surveyor has assessed the value of laptops of leveno-G-570@ rate Rs.23,025/-.Levono.Z-580 @ Rs.36,700/-,DELL INSPIRON -15R @ of Rs38,000/- ,DELL INSPIRON 14 R @ Of Rs.23,000/- and accordingly assessed the total value of burgled laptops numbering 18 at Rs.4,58,050/- but curiously enough in his report illegally mentioned that 05 pieces of laptops of Levono ,G-570 mentioned at Serial no-10,02,04,05,03 in the F.I.R. were not burgled, despite the fact that the same are mentioned in the invoice no 01735 dated 26 July 2012 Original Infotel (vide Ext-9(i)) .Besides, it is evident from this invoice that 10 laptops were purchased through this documents but arbitrarily and illegally the surveyor has not taken account of these laptops.
It further appears from the surveyor’s report (Ext.A/1) that the surveyor calculated assessment of loss in an unethical manner as firstly he calculated loss in total of Rs.3,50,975/-thereafter calculated loss in total of Rs.3,04,925/- and latter calculated total loss of Rs.1,85,913/- on pure imaginary manner. Further also the surveyor most surprisingly at page no 4 of his report mentioned that the stock of the M/s Aayan as per stock statement provided by financing Bank on 31.08.2012 was Rs.18.75 lac. but again arbitrarily and in imaginary way without any ground mentioned closing stock Rs.21,32,198.31 and it was purely his invented figure in order to minimise the amount of loss and damages actually caused to the complainant. This shows that the act of the O.P’s. insurance / company through its surveyor from the very beginning of lodging of claim remain doubtfull and injurious to the interest of the complainant, which apparently caused doubt on the surveyors report. It further appears that initially the surveyor in his first survey report (ExtA) completely denied the occurrence of burglary but latter on submission of final form by the police after investigation admitted about the burglary, however at one place assessed loss of Rs.3,50,975/- , other place assessed loss of Rs.3,04,925 and third place assessed loss of Rs 1,85,913/- and lastly recommended for repudiation of claim which proved the malafide, arbitrary, ,dishonest intension of the surveyor and as such the surveyors reports Ext.A and Ext.A/1 are doubtful and not acceptable. C.W.1 Nalin Bilochan Jha in his affidavited statement vide Para-3 to 18 has clearly supported his case.He has stated that the details of 18 stolen laptops have been proved on the basis of invoices and bill related to laptop of DELL INSPIRON 15 R mentioned at serial No.3 could not be traced. Further in Para18 to 22 ofn his statement proved that surveyor’s report is incorrect, imaginary and motivated. Therefore ,he is entitled to reliefs claim.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that surveyor on pure imagination mentioned in his report the closing stock at Rs.21,32,198.31 though in his report he clearly mentioned stock of complainant on 31.08.2012 at Rs..18,75,000/- from the Bank statement (Ext-11). The surveyor in his report (ExtA/1) suggested the formula of calculation at average basis as
loss × sum assured
stock
and on the basis of said formula the loss assessed on the average basis would come as follows
458050 × 13,00,000 = 03,17,581/-
18,75,000
Thus the loss on the average basis would comes to Rs.03,17,581=00.The contention of learned counsel for the contesting O.Ps that the complainant had fraudulently misrepresented by giving in correct details of alleged burgled laptops,hence under Shopkeeper’s General Insurance Condition no.o8 all the benefits would be forfeited is absolutely illegal and unjustified. Thus complainant is entitled to get Rs.03,17,581=00 on account of loss the average basis formula.
12. Now, we would look in to the matter of loss and damages sustained by the complainant due to negligency and deficiency in services of the O.P’s insurance company towards paying interest to the financer, rent of business premises,electric charges,salary to the staff and the insurance company has kept the price of burgled laptop with it for four years by not settling claim causing heavy loss to the complainant .It appears from the evidence of C.W.-01 Nalim Bilochan Jha that from para-8 and 9 of his statement clearly stated that due to not settling claim by the insurance comp. he sustained heavy loss , besides suffered damages in paying interest to the financer at the rate of interest @ 11% besides he sustained loss in paying salary to the staff @12,000/-per month, electrick bill @1,000/- per month from the date of occurrence. This shows that the complainant has vividly proved loss and damages caused to him due to the act of opposite party by not settling the claim for four years. This witness has not been crfoss examined hence,his uncontroverted evidence is taken to be proved.
13. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and also going through the oral and documentary evidence brought on the record including F.I.R. (Ext-5),Protest petition dated 29.02.2016 (Ext.9) bill of invoice of purchase of burgled laptops (Ext-9 series),insurance policy (Ext-1),claim application(Ext-6),legal notices(Ext-8series) it clearly proves that despite the complainant furnished all the required documents to the surveyor of O.P’s Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd. his claim was illegally and arbitrarily neither settled nor any payment was made, Thus the O.P’s Insurance Company have acted arbitrarily callously, in despotic and capricious manner resulting deficiency in service. We are thus, of opinion that complainant had suffered, harassment ,mental tension, agony, loss and damages due to the act of the O.P’s Insurance company hence entitled to get Rs.03,17,581/- (Three lac seventeen thousand five hundred eighty one) towards the insured stolen 18 laptops ,Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac)towards compensation due to loss damages, harassment etc and Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) towards cost of litigation ,Besides entitled to get interest @12% on the awarded amount .However O.P no 3 and 4 are not liable. For any negligency and deficiency in service.
It is therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the complainant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against O.P.No 1 and 2 i.e the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. O.P.n0. 1 and 2 are thus directed to make payment of principal amount of stolen Laptops Rs. 03,17,581/-( Three lac seventeen thousand five hundred eighty one ) along with @12% interest p.a. from the date of occurrence of theft i.e. dated 02.09.2012 till its payment. The O.P’s are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-( One lac) and Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) by way cost of litigation to the complainant.
The order must be complied within one month from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which necessary legal action as contemplated u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 would be initiated to the O.P’s Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd.
The office clerk is directed to furnish copy of this order to the parties or their advocate free of cost.
This case, is thus stands decided, accordingly.
