Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/121/2014

Smt. Resam Devi w/o Kailash Chand Choudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dawarka Parsad Sharma Atthorised Officer P.G.F.Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gopal Shastri

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 121 /2014

 

Smt.Resham Devi w/o Kailash Chaudhary r/o 327 Sriram Tila Rajeev Nagar, Lankapuri Shastri Nagar Jaipur

Vs.

Sh.Dwarka Prasad Sharma authorised officer PGF Ltd. Windsor Plaza, SC Road, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 9.6.2015

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr. Gopal Shastri counsel for the appellant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Jaipur ^4th dated 14.11.2013 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant's son had applied for a plot from the respondent who is a Real Estate Company. As per the terms of the allotment this company had offered Personal Accident Insurance of Rs.75,000/- to each allottee. The complainant's son had been murdered on 5.10.2009 and she filed a personal accident claim with the company. When the claim was not settled, she filed a consumer complaint. The company in its reply filed before the learned DCF only objected that the complainant has not completed the requisite formalities for want of which the claim could not be settled. However, the learned DCF found that the complainant had submitted the requisite documents and no other documents were demanded from the complainant and ordered that the personal accident claim of her son may be paid to the complainant alongwith Rs.7500/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2500/- as cost of prosecution. This appeal has been filed for enhancement in the award. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned DCF has not allowed any interest on the claim amount.

 

3

 

The respondents have not appeared before us despite service. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant should be allowed interest on the claim amount of Rs.74,900/- as the company has not settled the claim in time. We have considered this argument.

 

On perusal we find that the company was not able to prove what formality was not completed by the complainant for which the claim could not be settled. We wish to allow this appeal and order that interest @ 9% p.a. shall be paid by the respondent company from the date of presentation of the complaint to the complainant.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm