Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 42 of 2018
Date of Institution : 27.04.2018
Date of Decision : 22.10. 2021
Gurmeet Kaur aged 42 years widow of Satnam Singh resident of 185 Blair Road Opposite Bau Cloth House, Bhikhiwind Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
......Complainant
Versus
- Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance, Office at Policy Servicing Unitech Trade Centre, 2nd Floor, Sushant Lok, Phase-I Sector 43 Gurgaon-122009, Haryana India through its M.D.
- Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance, Office at Nagpal Tower, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar through its Manager.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. J.S. Pannu, Member
Ms. Nidhi Verma Member
For Complainant Sh. Amit Dhawan Advocate
For Opposite Parties Sh. Sangramjit Singh Advocate.
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Gurmeet Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant’s husband namely Satnam Singh had availed Life Insurance Policy from the opposite party company having policy No. 0049273217 bearing client ID No. 8294035715 dated 23.1.2015 and term of the policy was 20 years and insurance cover of Rs. 6 lac was given by the opposite party to the deceased Satnam Singh and the complainant is a nominee in the Life Insurance Policy of the deceased Satnam Singh which was purchased from opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the above said policy Rs. 30,000/- was the annual premium which was to be paid by the deceased to the opposite parties annually for 10 years and the deceased paid Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite parties vide a demand draft got prepared by the deceased from his saving bank account having account No. 2129101010791 on 17.1.2015 in the name of the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued the Life Insurance Policy issued to him. The annual premium was to be paid to the opposite parties from the saving account mentioned above by transferring the premium of Rs. 30,000/- per annum automatically to the opposite parties bank account and as such no cash payment or cheque or draft was to be given to the opposite parties as on annual premium as per the terms of the policy. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant i.e. policy holder died on 14.7.2017 and after his death the opposite parties were immediately informed by the complainant and the opposite party insured the complainant that the claim of Rs. 6 Lacs will be released to her very soon i.e. 15 days and also the complainant supplied all the necessary documents to the opposite parties as required by them. The complainant did not receive any insurance claim of his deceased husband i.e. of Rs. 6 Lacs from the opposite parties and as such, she approached the opposite parties for asking them about the releasing of the insurance claim and again the opposite parties assured her that it will be released in few days and this was the reply by the opposite parties after several visits to the opposite parties by the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice through her counsel to the opposite parties dated 10.10.2017 by way of which giving them a time of 15 days to release the claim to her and instead of releasing the claim of Rs. 6 Lacs the opposite parties replied to the legal notice vide letter dated 31.10.2017 whereby giving vague reasons for non-releasing of the claim and also alleging that no standing instructions specifically were given by the deceased to the opposite parties in regard to mode of payment of premium, rather the deceased and given his consent any instructions for payment of premium through his bank account vide amount transfer technology/ banking and it was very much mentioned by the deceased during filling of the proposal form of the policy. The opposite parties had also given a vague reason in the reply of the legal notice whereby the opposite parties are alleging that the proposal form was left incomplete and some column of the proposal were left blank which is also an unbelievable story prepared by the opposite parties to deny the claim to the complainant. the deceased had maintained sufficient balance in his account which was given to the opposite parties for payment of premium annually which also proves that there was no hindrance of cash and funds to pay the premium of policy, moreover the opposite parties had there-self transferred amount of Rs. 30,000/- as premium from the account of the deceased vide entry dated 11.5.2016 and as such, this entry also proves that the opposite parties were receiving the payment through transfer method of payment from the deceased account. After the receiving the reply from the opposite parties, the complainant was very much embarrassed and again worsened when she was told by the opposite parties that an amount of Rs. 59,400/- has been credited in her bank account in lieu of the insurance claim but the complainant told the opposite parties that the insurance claim of the deceased was of Rs. 6 Lacs and not of Rs. 59,400/-. The opposite parties told the complainant that only the fund value can be paid by them to the complainant and not the actual cover amount of Rs. 6 Lacs as the policy of the deceased had already been lapsed due to non payment of premium in time and as such, the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice with the complainant whereby denying the insurance cover claim to her of her deceased husband. The complainant has prayed the following relieves may be granted to the complainant
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to release Rs. 6,00,000/- i.e. the insurance claim and insurance cover amount as per the policy in question of the deceased husband of the complainant.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing harassment of complainant.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Commission as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed forthwith Under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From perusal of instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein are vague, baseless and with malafide intention. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of services without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Act, as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this opposite party nor any deficiency in services being established against the opposite parties hence the averments and allegations made therein are false, frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality. Without prejudice to the above stated contentions, the opposite parties submitted the correct facts and details of the case therein below. Mr. Satnam Singh after completely understanding and satisfying himself with the terms and conditions of our product “Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Dream Smart Plan” , voluntarily applied for an Insurance Policy vide Proposal form bearing No. 1100607983 and provided all the relevant details and information in the signed Proposal Form. Trusting said details and information provided in the Proposal form, a Policy bearing No. 0049273217 was issued in favour of the DLI with the Risk Commencement date being 23.1.2015 stipulating for payment of Annual Premium amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for a premium payment term of 10 years and policy term of 20 years against the sum assured of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thereafter the policy pack was dispatched to the DLI and was duly delivered. The DLI had opted for auto debit facility for payment of renewal premiums. The standing instructions provided by the DLI was rejected by the opposite party and a letter dated 19.2.2015 was duly sent to the DLI intimating the rejection of standing instructions issued by the DLI. The renewal premium under the aforesaid policy was due on 23.1.2016. However, the DLI failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date and accordingly the policy moved to discontinuance status. However, upon being once again informed about the cancellation status of the standing instructions mandate, DLI paid the renewal premium through the Branch Office of the concerned Bank and the Policy was reinstated accordingly. Thereafter, the second renewal premium fell due on 23.1.2017. The DLI once again failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date. The opposite party duly sent a renewal premium overdue notice dated 31.1.2017 informing the DLI to pay renewal premium. Despite the reminder notice, the DLI failed to pay the renewal premium due on 23.1.2017 and accordingly, the policy as discontinued with effect from 25.3.2017. The opposite party duly sent a notice to the DLI informing about the same. Thereafter, the opposite party received intimation from the complainant to the effect that he DLI had expired on 14.7.2017. Since the policy was already in discontinued with effect from 25.3.2017 and the person insured i.e. the husband of the complainant, expired on 14.7.2017, the nominee was entitled to receive only the fund value under the police and no other benefit under the said policy. The relevant clause of the policy contract is reproduced therein below for ready reference:-
4.1.1 On discontinuance of premium during the lock- in period.
(i) Revival of policy without Revival Period;
(ii) Intimating us of the intention to revive within Revival period
starting from the date of discontinuance of the policy; or
(iii) Complete withdrawal from the policy without any risk cover
Note: Until the policyholder exercises his/her options or up to the expiry of notice period, whichever is earlier, the policy is deemed to be in force with risk cover as per terms and conditions of the policy.
4.1.1 On the date of discontinuance of the policy, the Fund Value less applicable discontinuance charges shall be transferred to the discontinued policy fund and life cover ceases. If option 4.1.1(iii) is exercises within the notice period, the policy will be treated as surrendered and the surrender provisions as specified in Clause 5 shall be applicable. In case the policyholder does not exercise any of the options, the treatment of such policy shall be in accordance with 4.1.1(iii) above.
2.1 Death Benefit:
(b) In case of death of the Life Assured while the Fund Value of your policy is held in Discontinued Policy Fund, the Proceeds of the Discontinued Policy Fund, as on the date of registration of death claim shall be payable.
The opposite party in accordance with the terms of the policy contract duly paid the fund value of Rs. 59,400/- in favour of complainant. The opposite party has duly paid the fund value to the complainant in accordance with the terms of the policy contract and as such, the complainant is not entitled to claim any further benefits under the said Policy. The opposite party has acted strictly in furtherance to the terms of the policy contract and hence there does not arise any question of deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the said policy. Further, the complainant is not entitled to any relief under the said policy since the policy was in discontinues status on the date of death of the insured person. The present complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. On merits, it was pleaded that the DLI had opted for auto debit facility for payment of renewal premiums. However, the standing instructions provided by the DLI was rejected by the opposite party and a letter dated 24.2.2015 was duly sent to the DLI intimating the rejection of the standing instructions issued by the DLI. The renewal premium under the policy as due on dated 23.1.2016 but the DLI failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date. However, the DLI later on paid the renewal premium through the Branch office of the concerned Bank and the policy was reinstated accordingly. This fact itself establishes that the DLI was well aware about the rejection of the auto debit/ standing instructions facility. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record coy of the proposal Form and policy documents as Ex. OPs-1,2/1, Copy of letter dated 19.2.2015 Ex. OPs 1,2/2, Copy of renewal premium overdue notice dated 31.1.2017 Ex. OPs 1, 2/3, affidavit of Gurvinder Singh Talwar son of Mr. Daljit Singh Talwar Manger legal Ex. OPs 1, 2/4.
3 The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties and denied all the pleas taken in the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. Alongwith the rejoinder, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex. C-1, Death certificate of Satnam Singh Ex. C-2, Two legal notices dated 10.1.2017 alongwith two postal receipts dated 11.10.2017 Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6, Reply of legal notice by Canara HSBC dated 31.10.2017 Ex. C-7, Copy of account statement of Satnam Singh Ex. C-8, copy of account statement of Gurmeet Kaur Ex. C-9, Adhar Card of Gurmeet Kaur is Ex. C-10, Adhar Card of Satnam Singh is Ex. C-11.
4 We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.
5 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant’s husband namely Satnam Singh availed Life Insurance Policy No. 0049273217 dated 23.1.2015 for the tenure of 20 years from the opposite party, the premium of Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid yearly and the complainant’s husband paid first installment of Rs. 30,000/- through demand draft and thereafter it was agreed between the parties that the premium shall be auto debited from the account of the complainant’s husband, which is evident from the policy documents attached by the opposite parties in document Ex. OPs/1 at page No. 4 where in the column of the preference of renewal premium payment standing instruction has been selected. He further contended that the opposite parties in their written version and affidavit claims that they have rejected the standing instructions as mode of renewal of policy and had intimated the complainant’s husband through a letter dated 19.2.2015 which is annexed as Ex. OP1, 2/2. The contention raised by the opposite parties has no force as the letter dated 19.2.2015 which is annexed as Ex. OP1, 2/2 is computer generated copy which could be printed at any time at any place. The opposite parties fail to prove the delivery of the said letter as they have not placed on record any postal receipt vide which they have sent letter to the husband of the complainant. The contention raised by the opposite parties that they have rejected the standing instructions as mode of renewal of the policy has also no force as it is evident from the document relied upon by the complainant Ex C-8 which is account statement of the complainant’s husband, that the second installment has been auto debited by the opposite parties from the account on 11.5.2016. He further contended that the husband of the complainant died on 14.7.2017 and the complainant lodged the claim of sum assured i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- but the opposite parties put lame excuses and paid Rs. 59,400/-, legal notice was also sent by the counsel for the complainant for the claim. Moreover in the reply in Para No. 8 of the legal notice the insurance company claims that they have sent the reminder on 10.12.2015 to the complainant’s husband i.e. prior to the premium date and there after reminder notice was sent on 4.2.2016 alongwith calls and thereafter the policy was discontinued and again intimation was sent through post on 23.2.2016. All these claims and arguments of the opposite parties are nullify as there is no documentary proof of any of such intimation as there is no postal receipt attached with the file. In reply sent by the opposite parties in Para No. 10 of the legal notice, the insurance company claims that policy was again reinstated and thereafter in Para No. 11 of the legal notice again claims that they have sent the reminder on 10.12.2016 to the complainant’s husband i.e. prior to the premium date and thereafter reminder notice was sent on 30.1.2017 alongwith calls and thereafter the policy as discontinued on 23.2.2017 and again intimation was sent. All these claims and arguments of the opposite parties are nullify as there is no postal receipt attached with the file and even there is no such document is on the file which clearly shows that communication as made in this regard. He further contended that the documents Ex. OPs 1, 2/2, Ex. OP1,2/3 cannot be relied upon in the absence of postal receipt and more over second installment has been auto debited by the opposite parties on 11.5.2016 which means standing instructions were continued. The opposite parties have produced and relied upon false document just to evade their liability and the complainant has prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Commission as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed forthwith Under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From perusal of instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein are vague, baseless and with malafide intention. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of services without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Act, as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this opposite party nor any deficiency in services being established against the opposite parties hence the averments and allegations made therein are false, frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality. He further contended that Mr. Satnam Singh after completely understanding and satisfying himself with the terms and conditions of our product “Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Dream Smart Plan” , voluntarily applied for an Insurance Policy vide Proposal form bearing No. 1100607983 and provided all the relevant details and information in the signed Proposal Form. Trusting said details and information provided in the Proposal Form, a Policy bearing No. 0049273217 was issued in favour of the DLI with the Risk Commencement date being 23.1.2015 stipulating for payment of Annual Premium amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for a premium payment term of 10 years and policy term of 20 years against the sum assured of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thereafter the policy pack was dispatched to the DLI and was duly delivered. Coy of proposal form and policy documents is Ex. OP1,2/1. The DLI had opted for auto debit facility for payment of renewal premiums. The standing instructions provided by the DLI was rejected by the opposite party and a letter dated 19.2.2015 was duly sent to the DLI intimating the rejection of standing instructions issued by the DLI. Copy of the letter dated 19.2.2015 is Ex. OP1,2/2. The renewal premium under the aforesaid policy was due on 23.1.2016. However, the DLI failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date and accordingly the policy moved to discontinuance status. However, upon being once again informed about the cancellation status of the standing instructions mandate, DLI paid the renewal premium through the Branch Office of the concerned Bank and the Policy was reinstated accordingly. Thereafter, the second renewal premium fell due on 23.1.2017. The DLI once again failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date. The opposite party duly sent a renewal premium overdue notice dated 31.1.2017 informing the DLI to pay renewal premium. Copy of the renewal premium overdue notice dated 31.1.2017 is Ex. OP 1,2/3. Despite the reminder notice, the DLI failed to pay the renewal premium due on 23.1.2017 and accordingly, the policy as discontinued with effect from 25.3.2017. The opposite party duly sent a notice to the DLI informing about the same. Thereafter, the opposite party received intimation from the complainant to the effect that he DLI had expired on 14.7.2017. Since the policy was already in discontinued with effect from 25.3.2017 and the person insured i.e. the husband of the complainant, expired on 14.7.2017, the nominee was entitled to receive only the fund value under the police and no other benefit under the said policy. The relevant clause of the policy contract is reproduced therein below for ready reference:-
4.1.1 On discontinuance of premium during the lock- in period.
(i) Revival of policy without Revival Period;
(ii) Intimating us of the intention to revive within Revival period
starting from the date of discontinuance of the policy; or
(iii) Complete withdrawal from the policy without any risk cover
Note: Until the policyholder exercises his/her options or up to the expiry of notice period, whichever is earlier, the policy is deemed to be in force with risk cover as per terms and conditions of the policy.
4.1.1 On the date of discontinuance of the policy, the Fund Value less applicable discontinuance charges shall be transferred to the discontinued policy fund and life cover ceases. If option 4.1.1(iii) is exercises within the notice period, the policy will be treated as surrendered and the surrender provisions as specified in Clause 5 shall be applicable. In case the policyholder does not exercise any of the options, the treatment of such policy shall be in accordance with 4.1.1(iii) above.
2.1 Death Benefit:
(b) In case of death of the Life Assured while the Fund Value of your policy is held in Discontinued Policy Fund, the Proceeds of the Discontinued Policy Fund, as on the date of registration of death claim shall be payable.
The opposite party in accordance with the terms of the policy contract duly paid the fund value of Rs. 59,400/- in favour of complainant. The opposite party has duly paid the fund value to the complainant in accordance with the terms of the policy contract and as such, the complainant is not entitled to claim any further benefits under the said Policy. The opposite party has acted strictly in furtherance to the terms of the policy contract and hence there does not arise any question of deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the said policy. Further, the complainant is not entitled to any relief under the said policy since the policy was in discontinues status on the date of death of the insured person. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7 In the present complaint it is not disputed that the husband of the complainant namely Satnam Singh has taken the insurance policy from the opposite parties. It is also not disputed that the husband of the complainant as given to installments the insurance policy to the opposite parties. It is also not disputed in this case, that Satnam Singh had died because after admitting the insurance policy in favour of husband of the complainant namely Satnam Singh, the insurance company has paid the fund value of Rs.59,400/- to the complainant which is clear from the statement of the complainant Ex. C-9. The death certificate of husband of the complainant namely Satnam Singh is Ex. C-2. The whole of the case revolves around the question that which mode was opted by the DLI for renewal of premium payment. The version of the complainant is that at the time of filling up the proposal form the DLI has given preference for renewal premium as ‘Standing Instructions’ and the amount was to be deducted automatically from his account for the requisite premium. The proposal form is Ex. OPs/1 on the record. On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that the DLI had opted for auto debit facility for payment of renewal premiums. The standing instructions provided by the DLI was rejected by the opposite party and a letter dated 19.2.215 was duly sent to the DLI intimating the rejection of the standing instructions issued by the DLI which is Ex. OP1,2/2. The relevant para of letter dated 19.2.2015 is reproduced as follows:-
……We regret to inform you, that we are unable to proceed with your standing instructions request as the standing instructions form submitted by you has been rejected for the reason as mentioned bellows:-
Others
The bare reading of the letter shows that the opposite parties have not given any reason for rejecting the standing instructions request of DLI and has given the reason by mentioning the word ‘others’. The opposite parties have failed to produce any document on record which shows that complainant himself has paid the second premium whereas the contention of the complainant is that the second premium was auto debited. Moreover, the opposite parties have not placed on record any postal receipt and any receipt of valid currier agency etc. on the record to support the letter dated 19.2.2015 which shows that the said letter has been acknowledged by the DLI at the relevant time. The opposite parties have further placed on record another letter dated 31.1.2017 in which the Premium Due Date is mentioned as 23.1.2017 i.e. after the due date and the said letter is also not supported by any postal receipt any receipt of valid currier agency etc. The opposite party has not placed on record any postal receipt, receipt of valid currier agency which established that the letter dated 31.1.2017 has been delivered to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also not placed on record any document which shows that the opposite parties have closed the policy of Satnam Singh due to non-payment of premium. The complainant has placed on record one document Ex. C-7 which is reply to the legal notice dated 10.10.2017 and Para No. 11 given by the opposite parties is as follows:-
That once again before the 3rd premium fell due on 23.1.2017, the company sent a renewal payment reminder notice dated 10.12.2016 to the DLA requesting him to pay the required premium on time. However, the DLA chose not to pay the requisite premium amount by due date i.e. 23.1.2017. As per normal business practice, the company sent the Renewal Premium Overdue Notice dated 31.1.2017 once again requesting the DLA to pay the Premium.”
In its reply, the opposite parties have stated that they have sent renewal payment reminder notice dated 10.12.2016 to the DLA but the opposite parties have also not placed on record any document proving the contention the opposite parties that any payment reminder notice dated 10.12.2016 has been sent to the complainant. The contention of the opposite parties is not proved on record due to lack of documents and postal receipts and it all creates doubt in the entire action taken by the opposite parties for rejection of the claim of the complainant. Moreover, the statement of account reflect that there were sufficient funds in the account of DLI for the renewal of policy. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pastures to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
8 The opposite parties have placed on record various letters to show that they have sent the same to complainant time to time but opposite parties are failed to prove the mode of letters sent to the complainant as well as also could not prove the acknowledgement by the complainant. Hence, this is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
9 From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that Opposite Parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. As such, opposite parties are directed to make the death claim of Satnam Singh minus Rs. 59,400/- i.e. fund value which has already been given to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Commission
22.10. 2021
