Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/267

TODAY HOMES AND INFRA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Nov 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing: 02.11.2018

And

12.11.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:06.12.2018

 

 

Complaint No. 267/2012

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Through having its Registered Office at:

Statesman House, 8^th Floor,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001                                                         ….Complainants                     

VERSUS

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.

Having its Branch Office at:

Flat No. 303 to 310,

Kailash Building (3^rd Floor)

26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001                                                     ….Opposite Parties

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

Present:       Sh. Rahul Sharma, Counsel for the Complainant

                   Sh. Navneet Kumar, Counsel alongwith  Sh. Vikas Bhadana for the OPs.

 

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           Repudiation of the claim preferred by M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is the root cause of this complaint. This complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) by the M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for short complainant against the Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OPs, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs they having rejected the claim and praying for the relief as under:

 

1. Direct the OP to honour the claim of Rs. 71,52,526/- submitted by the complainant with the respondent;
2. Direct the OP to pay the complainant the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation of above stated loss of use of vehicle, harassment, mental agony etc;
3. Direct the OP to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs for the institution of the present complaint;
4. Pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Forum any deem fit in the interest of justice in the favour of the complainant and against the OP.

 

2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           The complainant, the owner of a Mercedes Benz S Class (S600L) Car bearing registration No: DL2CQ2031 (Model 2007), had insured the vehicle with the OPs for the insured value of Rs. 90,00,000/- under a Future Secure Private Car Comprehensive Policy dated 25.01.2011 vide policy number 2011-V1078520-FPV for a period of one year from 07.02.2011 to 06.02.2012 for a premium of Rs. 87,525/-. On 09.09.2011 the Director of the complainant was on his way to his office when the vehicle got submerged in the pool of rain water and it immediately stopped running. Since it was raining very heavily and there was a huge traffic jam, the complainant immediately contacted the authorized dealer of Mercedes-Benz, M/s T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the said vehicle was towed to the said workshop at Okhla, New Delhi and the estimate of repairs was prepared, one of the basic requirement/pre-requisite for lodging a claim with the OP. It was informed by the workshop that the engine of the said vehicle had been damaged and therefore required necessary repairs in the nature of replacement of engine and an estimate of Rs. 71,52,526/- was prepared by the workshop for the said repairs/replacement.
4.           On receipt of the estimate, a claim was submitted on 05.10.2011. A Surveyor was appointed by the OPs to make an assessment of the loss and the complainant was requested to furnish certain documents to enable them to process the claim which documents were duly furnished.
5.           However the OPs by way of their letter dated 22.10.2011 declined to honour the claim of the complainant and sought to repudiate it by contending that the complainant had failed to take due and proper care by trying to start the said vehicle in the waterlogged area which is a well-known source to cause damage to the engine and therefore the liability of the OP stood discharged as per clause 4 of the said policy. The OP also contended that the claim was not intimated to them immediately after the loss occurred. The OP also raised a ground to deny the claim of the complainant that the engine of the said vehicle was dismantled by the repairer/workshop on the instructions of the complainant. The OP further sought to restrict its liability by contending that its liability is restricted only up to the flushing of the engine and the cleaning of the vehicle. The relevant extracts of the letter is indicated below:

 

The liability of the insurer is restricted up to flushing of engine and the cleaning of vehicle. Accordingly the surveyor has advised the workshop for the same. The same was also informed to you in our letter dated 22.10.2011 after you submitted the documents to our surveyor on 15.10.2011. In our constant endeavour to keep all the claims related development and communications transparent, we have kept you informed with our earlier letters and have also requested you to get the vehicle repaired up to flushing of engine and the cleaning of vehicle which is under the preview of policy terms and conditions. Hence there is no deficiency in service.

 

6.           The complainant had taken up the matter with the OPs again but the OPs reiterated their stand and suitably replied to the complaint by way of a letter the contents of which are reproduced below:

 

We sought your clarification on below mentioned points for which we have not received any suitable reply from your end:

1. There is no external impact either to the vehicle or to the engine from outside.
2. Engine cannot be impacted merely coming in to contact with water and damage if any, can be attributed to either mechanical failure or trying to run the engine when it is still in contract with the water.
3. When vehicle stops on the water logged road, efforts to start the vehicle is one source to cause damages to engine.
4. The obvious cource is not to try to start the engine, without total cleaning the water from inside engine and inspection by an expert technician, thus your extension of damages to the engine cannot be considered as per condition no. 4 of policy contract. The same reads as below:

 

“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss and to maintain in the efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or the driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”

 

5. Please note the liability of the insurer is restricted up to flushing of engine and the cleaning of vehicle. Accordingly the surveyor has advised the workshop for the same.

As noted in the foregoing letter, documents were to be submitted in the stipulated timeframe provided therein. Since we have not received the documents as stipulated in point(e) above within the  stipulated timeframe we construe that you are no longer interested in pursuing the captioned claim and accordingly the captioned claim is closed as “Nil Claim” on grounds of non compliance of documents.

Thus, we regret our inability to consider the said claim due to reasons as mentioned above.

 

7.           The complainant has objected to the contention of the OPs that its liability is limited only to the extent of flushing and cleaning of engine as baseless, unfounded, afterthought and contrary to the contract of insurance policy entered into between the parties. According to him the policy being comprehensive insurance policy covering all kinds of risks including inundation the OP is fully liable to indemnify. The OP cannot escape its liability by raising unsustainable grounds. The complainant on his part took all precautions to prevent any further damage to the said vehicle. If even for the sake for arguments it is admitted, that the complainant tried to start the engine or run the car in the waterlogged area, then also there would be no negligence on his part because when a vehicle stops running in a waterlogged area the driver of the said vehicle, as a reasonable man, would try to start the car so that it could pass through the said waterlogged area otherwise there would be a traffic jam. The driver of the said vehicle therefore had no choice but to drive through the said water. The driver of the said vehicle could not have waited for the water to clear.
8.           Finally the complainant has objected to the contention of the OP that its liability is limited only to the extent of flushing and cleaning of engine as under the comprehensive insurance policy covering all types and kinds of risks like fire, earthquake, riot, flood, typhoon, inundation, hurricane storm, accidental, terrorist activity, third party liability among other, he is entitled for the amount claimed.
9.           The complainant has also filed their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
10. In these circumstances the complaint was filed before this Commission for the redressal of the grievances. OPs were noticed and in response thereto they have filed their reply resisting the complaint on various grounds. Firstly, the averment of the OP is that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands inasmuch as a few facts essential for adjudication of the complaint have been deliberately suppressed. The suppression of fact is that the complainant nowhere stated in the complainant that the driver of the vehicle tried to start the vehicle when the engine was submerged with water. The Surveyor in its expert opinion has attributed the damage to the attempt made trying to run the engine when it is still in contact with the water. However this submission cannot be stretched beyond a time since the driver was in the traffic and he had to take steps to remove the vehicle from that area, or else, the driver would have put his own life and the life of the Director into danger as other vehicles on the road would have smashed the vehicle. Secondly, the objection of the OP is that the complaint, the complainant not having impleaded M/s T&T Motors and Mercedes Benz, the repairer and the manufacturer of the insured vehicle, is bad in law. However since the evidence by affidavit of the company mentioned above has already been filed, the argument cannot be stretched further. Moreover we notice from the relief that no specific or particular relief has been claimed as against the said repairer or manufacturer. The third objection of the OP is regarding delay in intimating the insurer about the incident. For this purpose the OPs have drawn our attention to clause 4 of the policy which reads as under:

 

In the event of the death of any person entitled to indemnity under this policy the company will in respect of the liability incurred by such person indemnify his/her personal representative in terms of and subject to the limitations of this policy provided that such personal representative shall as though such representative was the insured observe fulfill and be subject to the terms exceptions and conditions of this policy is so far as they apply.

 

11. The Surveyor appointed by the insurer on receipt of the intimation from the complainant regarding damage done to the vehicle, made the assessment, observing that the liability of the OPs in this behalf is restricted only upto Rs. 32,090/- for flushing of engine and the cleaning of vehicle. The OPs based on the assessment made by the Surveyor, addressed several letters to the insured, conveying their approval, intimating that the claim is not repudiated as a whole but restricted to the amount required for flushing of the engine and clearing of the insured vehicle. This leads us to an inevitable conclusion that the insurer was ready to pay part of the claim despite delayed intimation having been sent. To put it differently insurer have not found the factor of limitation as germane to the issue or else they would not have shown their willingness even to pay the amount of Rs. 32,010/-. If there exists delay, as is the allegation, the complainants would not have been offered even this amount, relying on the terms of the policy. Even otherwise on an issue where intimation about the loss or damage is not possible immediately, as is the case in the subject matter delay cannot be and should not be the ground for repudiation of the claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Om Prakash versus Reliance General Insurance and another as reported in IV [2017] CPJ 10 (SC) is pleased to hold as under:

 

11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result on loss of confidence of policy holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the explanation for the delay.

12. In the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident. The investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of Rs. 7,85,000 towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion is just and proper. The National Commission, therefore is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. We are also of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation.

 

The Hon’ble NCDRC have also taken similar view in the following two matters:

 

1. National Insurance Company Ltd. versus B Venkarwany (RP 2852/2013) decided on 06.12.2014;
2. National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. versus Kulwant Singh reported in IV [2014] CPJ 62 (NC).

 

12. The OPs have strongly submitted that the complainant after the incident contacted M/s T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. for the repairing of the vehicle. The said agency reportedly on the instructions of the complainant dismantled the vehicle which was later assembled and OPs were intimated only after the re-assembly of the car. To this effect the evidence by affidavit of Mr. Manoj Dimri working in T&T Motors was also filed.
13. Based on the documents the Surveyor furnished its findings stating that the exclusion of damages to the engine, if any, cannot be considered since not covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy. We may at this stage advert to the terms of the policy.

 

Section I- loss or damage to the vehicle insured

The company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon

1. By fire explosion self ignition or lightning;
2. By burglary housebreaking or theft;
3. By riot and strike;
4. By earthquake (fire and shock damage);
5. By flood typhoon hurricane storm tempest inundation cyclone hailstorm frost;
6. By accidental external means;
7. By malicious act;
8. By terrorist activity;
9. Whilst in transit by road rail inland-waterway lift elevator or air;
10. By landslide rockslide.

The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:

1. Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages;
2. Damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle is damages at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement.
3. Any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

 

14. On a plain reading of the terms of policy, particularly clause V of Section 1, the case seems to be covered in which case the OPs are under an obligation to indemnify the loss. The said clause is not prohibited by Section 2.
15. The OPs have also filed evidence by affidavit. The complainant has filed rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the OPs and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. This matter was finally heard on 02.11.2018 and on 12.11.2018. The counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
16. The ld. Counsel for the complainant based on the pleadings has argued that the OPs were grossly deficient in not accepting the claim preferred by him as a fall out of the vehicle getting submerged in the pool of rain water. On 9^th September 2011, it was raining heavily in Delhi and roads were flooded with water. On the morning of the same day, the Director of the complainant was travelling in the said vehicle from his residence to his office at Barakhamba Road and on reaching the Ring Road Stretch near ITO, Delhi the said vehicle got partially submerged in the pool or rain water and immediately stopped running. Since it was raining very heavily and there was a huge traffic jam, the complainant immediately contacted the authorized dealer of Mercedes Benz, M/s T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Okhla, New Delhi. An estimate of repairs was prepared at the instance of the complainant which was one of the basic and necessary requirement/pre-requisite for lodging a claim with the OP. The workshop informed the complainant that the engine of the said vehicle had been damaged and therefore required necessary repairs in the nature of replacement of engine and an estimate of Rs. 71,52,526/- was prepared by the workshop for the said repairs/replacement. On receipt of the estimate repairs, which was a necessary and basic requirement/pre-requisite for lodging a claim before the respondent, and after locating necessary insurance policy documents, the complainant sent a formal intimation dated 05.10.2011 to the OP. Since the estimate was from an authorized workshop its genuineness or otherwise is probably beyond the scope of any doubt.
17.  However the OPs on the other hand argued that the claim was repudiated for two reasons, namely, delay in intimation and secondly the damage is not covered under the policy. It was reiterated by the OPs that no prudent man would ever try to start the vehicle which stopped in between a water logged area knowing the fact that the vehicle is submerged in the pool of rain water and the vehicle had stopped due to this. In the subject matter the driver of the insured vehicle had not only taken the vehicle in the water logged area but also tried to start the vehicle which further caused severe damage to the engine of the insured vehicle. The act on the part of the complainant, according to the OPs, amounts to the breach of the condition in which case they are under no obligation to indemnify the loss.
18. The ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of his contention relied upon a judgment of the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of G. Sridhar Goud versus Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr (CC-70/2012) decided on 20.01.2014 as reported in 1LR2014 APSCDRC 28, holding as under:

 

Therefore, it becomes clear that there was heavy rain on 22.08.2011 and the car was stalled on the water logged road. The cause for the engine going off is due to hydrostatic locking. It is pertinent to note that “hydrostatic locking” is considered as an accident and covered by the terms of the insurance policy by this Commission in “Vasireddy S.V. Prasad vs Merecedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., and other in CC-06/2012 decided on 27.12.2013 which reads as under:

The surveyor deputed by the OP-3 and 4 had reported that water entered into the engine through air cleaner and he found hydrostatic lock of the engine. The surveyor had not said anything about cranking of the engine. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the complainant in attempting to drive the vehicle on the water logged road. Chandigarh State commission referring to its earlier decision, in “Tata AIG General Insurance Company” (Supra) held that damage caused to the engine of insured car cannot be termed as consequential damage when the vehicle was stopped due to splash of water on account of another vehicle. It held:

The facts of the case show that the complainant was going back from BMW workshop after some minor repairs. It was raining, the driver had been told not to crank the self if the engine stops on the way; he followed those instructions when the car stopped die to splash of water given by another vehicle coming from the opposite side. There was, therefore, no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the damage to the engine cannot be said to be a consequential damage due to the negligence of the driver of the driver of the vehicle. In fact, all the precautions appear to have been taken by the driver while driving the vehicle and, therefore, the claim could not be denied by the OP/appellant. Our view in this respect is supported by the order passed by this Commission in Kanta Dhir vs. M/s The Manager, ICICI Lombard and Anr. Appeal case no. 830/2007 decided on 24.0.2008, wherein it was held that if a person is going in the car and all of sudden rain starts and the water accumulates in the intersection and enters the engine or engine is seized then it is not fault of the insured and the insurer is liable to reimburse the claim. This order was followed in another case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. V.K. Bawa, Appeal case No. 428/2009 decided by this Commission on 11.11.2009.

 

19. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon another judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by the State Commission, U.T, Chandigarh in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. V.K. Bawa ( Appeal No. 428/2009 ) holding as under:

 

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions put forth on behalf of the parties. It has been rightly observed by the District Forum by referring the authority of this Commission in Kanta Dhir vs. The Manager, ICICI Lombard and Anr., Appeal case No. 830/2007, decided on 24.10.2008, that if a person is going in the car and all of a sudden rain starts and the water accumulates in the intersection and enters the engine or engine is seized then it is not the fault of the insured. Certainly the insurer is liable to reimburse the claim as the owner of the car or driver thereof would never intentionally take the car in deep water to cause damage to its own property. Further the ld. District Forum rightly observed that there was no negligence of the complainant or his driver in the instant case and, therefore, the report of Surveyor disallowing the claim of complainant on the ground that it was caused due to negligence of the complainant or his driver was not accepted.

 

20. The State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh has passed another order on 09.02.2012 in first appeal no. 34/2012 in the matter of Tata AIG General Insurance Company versus M/s Ayshveda Informatics (India) Ltd. and ors has held as under:

 

The facts of the case show that the complainant was going back from BMW workshop after some minor repairs. It was raining the driver had been told not to crank the self if the engine stops on the way; he followed those instructions when the car stopped due to splash of water given by another vehicle coming from opposite side. There was, therefore, no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the damage to the engine cannot be said to be consequential damage due to the negligence of the driver of the driver of the vehicle. In fact, all the precautions appear to have been taken by the driving the vehicle and, therefore, the claim could not be denied by the OP/appellant. Our view in this respect is supported by the order passed by this Commission in Kanta Dhir vs. M/s The Manager, ICICI Lomabrd and Anr., Appeal case No. 830/2007 decided on 24.10.2008, wherein it was held that if a person is going in the car and all of sudden rain starts and the water accumulates in the intersection and enters the engine or engine is seized then it is not fault of the insured and the insurer is liable to reimburse the claim. This order was followed in another case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. V.K. Bawa, Appeal case No. 428/2009 decided by this Commission on 11.11.2009.

 

21. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sandesh J. Choutha as reported in II [2017] CPJ 533 (NC) is pleased to observe as under:

 

We do not find merit in the contention of ld. Counsel for the petitioner that seizure of the engine of the subject car was due to heavy rain and not due to flood. The word “Floor” has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as large amount of water covering the area that is usually dry. From the facts of the case, it is clear that because of heavy rain, large amount of water had accumulated in the area where the subject car was being driven. Therefore, it cannot be said that area was not flooded. As the water which has flooded the area seeped into the engine of the car, this is clear case of damage caused to the subject car by flood. Hence, repudiation on the ground that damage was not covered under the insurance policy is not justified.

 

22. The Surveyor in its report has reported, inter alia, that

 

“In nutshell the rain water had entered into the engine and the engine stopped. In a bid to start it constant cranking was done due to which the engine seized”.

 

23. From the report it is apparent that the damage to the insured vehicle is a fall out of the proximate cause and not direct. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of United Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Dipendu Ghosh and Anr as reported in II [2009] CPJ 311 (NC) is pleased to distinguish between direct cause and direct proximate cause, observing as under:

 

“As per ‘The Law Lexicon, Law Dictionary’ the word direct cause and direct proximate cause’ have been defined as under:

Direct Cause: That which sets in motion train of events which brings about result without intervention of any force operating a working actively from new and independent source, or, one without which the injury would not have happened.

Direct and Proximate Cause: Means the cause which naturally leads to and might have expected to be directly instrumental in producing the result complained of.”

 

24. In view of the meaning of direct cause and direct proximate cause indicated above, we have no hesitation in accepting the fact that in the present case, unquestionably, the loss was caused from direct and proximate cause of inundation.
25. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the OPs placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. versus Garg Sons International as reported in [2013] 1 SCALE 410 and another judgment in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sony Cheriyan (CA No: 4913/1997 decided on 19.08.1999) as reported in MANU/SC/0495/1999 holding the terms of Insurance policy have to be strictly construed in order to determine extent of liability of insurer. But in the given subject the claim, relying on clause (V) is assured as it manifestly clear when it says that the company shall indemnify the loss or damage as a fall out of the floor Typhoon Hurricane Storm Tempest Inundation cyclone hailstorm frost.
26. The ld. Counsel for the OPs has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Raj Kumar Panjwani versus Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr (RP-2179/2015) decided on 02.12.2015, holding that delay in intimation about the damage done is a ground for repudiation. This argument of the OPs has already been deliberated upon in the preceding para.
27. The third ruling/authority relied upon by the OPs is a judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in CC-86/2010 in the matter of M/s BTM Industries Ltd. versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 15.01.2016, holding, inter alia, that since the complainant withheld material fact they are not entitled to any relief, as they have violated the condition of the policy. However the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Amatendu Sahoo versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as reported in II [2010] CPJ 9 (SC)= (2010) 4 SCC 536 is pleased to hold that in case of violation of any condition of policy, as is the allegation of the OPs in the subject matter, the claim of the complainant be settled on non-standard basis.
28. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the legal position explained above, we are of the considered view that the objections of the OPs since not maintainable are sequentially rejected in which case, the complaint deserves to be accepted. Having reached to this conclusion, the core question is the relief the complainant can be considered to be allowed. After analyzing the legal position we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the OPs to settle the claim, relying on the law settled by their Lordships in the matter of Amatendu Sahoo (Supra), on non-standard basis within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant would be free to move this Commission under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
29. Ordered accordingly.
30. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. File be consigned to records.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

       MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)