West Bengal

Darjeeling

CC/12/2022

Sqn Ldr Sagar Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gulshan Singh, MJS Packers & Movers - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jun 2023

ORDER

                                            Govt. of West Bengal

Office of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling.
24, M.C. Road, Chota Kak Jhora, P.O & Dist: Darjeeling( W.B)Pin-734101
Phone:- 0354-2252305

Consumer Complaint No:- C.C- 12/2022
Date of Filing             Date of Disposal
23/08/2022                      27/06/2023

 

Complainant :
 

SQN LDR Sagar Soni, 
S/O Late Kamal Singh Soni, 
Air Force Station, Kurseong. 
Presently posted at Bagora Via Tung, 
P.O & P.S & Dist:- Darjeeling 
Pin- 734224.

 

Opposite Party :

Mr. Gulshan Singh,MJS Packers and Movers Transport,Shop No:-5, Khajuria Kalan (Near Sharma Dhaba),

New Mandi, Deep Bypass Road,Bhopal(M.P)-462023.

Present:- Sri. Siddhartha Ganguli................... Hon’ble President-in- Charge
Smt. Bhawana Thakuri.................... Hon’ble Member( Female)

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant:- Ritika Gurung & Pranesh Khati.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P:- Milindo Paul, Vatsal Verma.

Cont......P/2

::2::
C.C- 12 of 2022
F I N A L O R D E R

Siddhartha Ganguli( President-in- Charge):- An application has been filed
by the complainant against the O.P U/S 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 alleging
deficiency in service for causing loss of his luggage and household goods and
therefore he prays for a direction to be given upon the O.P for refunding the
entire damages suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs (
Rupees twenty Lakhs Only) and again prays for awarding compensation
amounting of Rs. 20 lakhs ( Rupees twenty lakhs Only) for mental pain,
physical sufferings and financial loss etc, and the cost of the proceeding.
The fact of the case in a nut shell is that the complainant is a Squadron
Leader of Air Force, posted at airport Bhopal Madhya Pradesh and he got one
transfer letter from his department on 09/02/2021 and after getting such
transfer order, he had hired a transport service on 07/03/2021 from the O.P ,
who deals in the business of movers and packers and having shop at the
above noted address in Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, for shifting his luggage and
household goods from Air Force Station Bhopal to Air Force Station, Kurseong,
Village:- Baghora via Tung P.O.&P.S Kurseong , Dist Darjeeling.
It is the contention of the complainant that for hiring the service of
transport of luggage and household goods, the complainant had paid an
advance of Rs. 76,401/( Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred and
One only) through internet banking to the O.P.
The complainant further stated that under the terms and conditions of the
O.P the consignment was sent through the vehicle, being No:- MP
04GA/3774, Model Eicher-19 and it was properly loaded at Air Force Station,
Bhopal and the said Vehicle left Bhopal on 08/03/2021.

Cont......P/3

::3::
C.C- 12 of 2022

The complainant had provided the O.P the OCTROI certificate with the list
of household items to avoid unwanted security issues at State Border Toll
Posts.
The complainant further stated that on 14/03/2021 the complainant
received one Whats- App message from the O.P informing him that the above
noted vehicle had met with an accident at Bergachi Thana of Araria (Bihar)
and the O.P requested him not to take any legal action as the O.P was willing
to compensate the entire loss due to such accident and the complainant
having good faith in the O.P and being a disciplined Military Officer did not
take any legal proceedings. Since after the incident on 15/03/2021 the
complainant sent his representatives to the place of occurrence wherein with
the help of Bergachi Police and the local people complainant managed to
recover few luggage which were totally damaged and beyond reparable and
therefore, the complainant immediately contacted the O.P informing him
about the damaged conditions of his goods and articles and asked for
compensation.
It is the allegation of the complainant that due to Covid-19 pandemic
situation and imposition of lockdown the O.P started refusing to receive
phone calls of the complainant. However, after the series of telephonic
discussions, the O.P sent Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the
complainant as compensation.
Further, the complainant stated that on 01/10/2021 the Complainant
registered a complaint to the SHO Police station, Bergachi about the incident
and then he visited the place of occurrence and met the In-Charge of Police
Station, Bergachi Thana, Araria ,Bihar and after going through the copy of
Cont......P/4

::4::
C.C- 12 of 2022

The Complaint later came to learn that the truck hired by him was also
carrying the consignment for Bhutan (Invoice No BP20003012751276 and
030300787788) about which the complainant was unknown and he had
provided them with one OCTROI EXCEMPTION certificate to avoid unwanted
security issues at State Border Toll Posts and the complainant is feared that
there might be chances of misuse of the OCTROI EXCEMPTION which was
mainly issued for defence personnel.
The Complainant sent one legal notice to the O.P in the month of
September,2021 by registered post asking him to pay damages for his goods
and compensate the entire loss suffered by him, but after sending notice the
O.P did not pay any heed to those notice, instead the O.P made a reply
through his lawyer on 01/10/2021 stating that he was not responsible
towards the loss of the complainant and did not take any step further to
settle the matter.
The Complainant had filed three complainants before the A.D, C.A &F.B.P,
Darjeeling against the O.P on 02/03/2022, 12.04.2022 and 10/05/2022 to
settle the dispute between them and to compensate the loss of the
complainant but the O.P did not pay any heed to and therefore, the
settlement failed. Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed the
complaint petition against the O.P for deficiency of services and negligence
act of the O.P and claimed for relief and compensation as stated herein
under.
Relief sought for:-
(a) Direct the O.P to refund the entire damages of loss amounting to Rs.
20,00,000/-( Rupees Twenty lakhs Only) along with interest incurred
thereon.

Cont......P/5

::5::
C.C- 12 of 2022

(b) Pay damages for mental agony and physical suffering of the complainant
assessed at Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs only) and financial loss due
to defects in the product .
(c) Cost of this proceeding to be paid by the Opposite Party to the
complainant.
(d) Further other reliefs as the complainant may be entitled to be granted by
this forum may deem fit.
The Complainant files the following documents by making annexure in order
to prove his case:-
1. Xerox copy of money receipt amounting to Rs 94,500/- dated 17/3/2021.
2. Copy of Consignment of Rs. 94,500/- dated 07/3/2021 issued by Real
Transport service.
3. Copy of Money receipt of Rs. 94,500/- dated 08/3/2021 issued by Real
Transport Service.
4. Copy of Documents pertaining to payments made by the complainant
through Bank transfer 3 pages.
5. Copy of photograph of the track with loaded condition.
6. Xerox copy of OCTROI exemption certificate mentioning the track number,
of list of household goods.
7. Copy of Photographs of damaged goods- 9 pages.
8. Copy of complaint of FIR dated 01/10/2021 written in English & Hindi
dated 17.03.2021
9. Copy of letter of the CA& FBP Darjeeling dated 02/3/2022,12/4/2022
&10/5/2022.

Cont......P/6

::6::
C.C- 12 of 2022

10. Copy of Advocate letter, dated nil.
11. Copy of Reply of Advocate letter 2 pages, dated 01.10.2021.
The O.P entered into appearance in this case on 21/11/2022 and filed one
petition for time for filing Written version and the Commission allowed his
petition and fixed on 05/12/2022 for filing Written Version and Vokalatnama
and on 05/12/2022 the O.P did not appear on time and therefore, this
Commission decided to proceed with the case ex-parte against the O.P as the
statutory period of 45 days for filing Written Version was over but after
passing of the said order one Mr Rajen Rai appeared before this Commission
with Written Version but the Commission did not accept the Written Version
and fixed the case for Ex-parte Evidence.
Further, it is seen from the case record that on 15/12/2022 the
Complainant filed Written- Affidavit-in-Chief but there is no reflection in order
sheet about the Evidence filed by the Complainant. However, on that date the
O.P filed Vokalatnama and prayed time for Evidence on their part and this
Commission imposed a cost of Rs. 1700/-( Rupees One Thousand Seven
Hundred Only) upon the O.P and this Commission gave chance to the O.P to
filed questionnaire against the Evidence-in – Chief of the Complainant.
The O.P submitted questionnaire and the Complainant reply on
16/02/2023 and the O.P also led Evidence on 14/03/2023 and the
Complainant also filed questionnaire against the Evidence of the O.P. The O.P
gave reply on 24/05/2023.
Further, upon scrutiny of the case record it is seen that on 05/12/2022 this
Commission decided to proceed with the case ex-parte against the O.P and
Cont......P/7

::7::
C.C- 12 of 2022

fixed the case for ex-parte proceeding and further fixed the case for ex-
parte Evidence and after passing of the order, one Mr Rajen Rai appeared
before this Commission and submitted Written Version and the said Written
Version is simply kept with the record. There is no whisper in order sheet
whether the said Written Version has been accepted or not.
Upon further scrutiny of the case record it is evident that on 15/12/2022
the O.P has filed one petition for vacating ex-parte order but there is no
reflection in order sheet whether the said petition has been allowed or not,
but upon perusal of order No:-07 dated 15/12/2022 it appears that a cost of
Rs. 1700/-( Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred only) was imposed upon
the O.P for non appearance and chance was given to the O.P to contest the
case by putting questionnaire and again after perusing the subsequent order it
is detected by us that the O.P led evidence and contested the case, without
the Written Version being accepted.
From the Written Version available with the case record, though it is not
accepted at all, it is seen that the O.P has denied all the allegations made in
complaint save and accept the facts admitted by him in the Written Version in
para 18 of the Written Version it has been categorically mentioned that the
O.P has paid Rs.50,000/-(Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant as
compensation for the goods damaged.
It is relevant to be mentioned here that the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C, W.B in
R.P/87/2018, titled as Swapan Kr. Banerjee & Ors Vs Mukherjee Construction
& Anr on 03.10.2018 passed an order wherein Hon’ble State Commission was
pleased to set aside the impugned order of the District( Forum), now
Commission and given a chance to the O.Ps to file questionnaire to test the
Cont......P/8

::8::
C.C- 12 of 2022

veracity of statement of the Complainant’s witnesses and to address
argument in respect of the Complainant’s case, in view of the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as Modula India Vs Kamakshya Singh Deo,
reported in (1988)4 SCC-619.
It was held as under:-

“ The instant revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Complainants to
impeach the Order No.2 dated 10.05.2018 made by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in
M.A.No.89/2018 stems from Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017. By the
impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed MA/ 89/2018 filed by the
Opposite Parties and accepted the Written Version subject to payment of Fine of
Rs.6,000/-.
          The petitioners herein being complainants lodged the complaint under
Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs
in a dispute of housing construction. The said complaint was admitted by Order
No.2 dated 10.10.2017 fixing 20.11.2017 for S.R. On 20.11.2017 both the O.Ps
had entered appearance by filing vakalatnama but prays for time to file written
version. The Ld. District Forum allowed the said prayer fixing 15.01.2018 for
filing written version. Subsequently, on 15.01.2018, once again O.Ps prayed for

time to file written version but the prayer of O.Ps was rejected in view of the
provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act and the decision of Three-Judge Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (1) CPR 123 and the record was fixed
for hearing on 15.03.2018. On that date, on behalf of O.Ps a petition has been
filed by O.Ps for vacating the order of ex-parte order of hearing and the Ld.
District Forum fix 27.04.2018 for hearing of the same and ultimately by the
impugned order, the Ld District Forum vacated its own order and accepted
Cont......P/9

::9::
C.C- 12 of 2022

the written version on payment of cost of Rs.6,000/-. Challenging the said
order, the complainants have come up in this Commission with the instant revision
petition.
          Mr. Amit Pachal, Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that in view
of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision of Hon’ble  National
Commission in catena of cases, the Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to
vacate or set aside its own order. He has also submitted that the O.Ps have
miserably failed to show any reason for the delay of 115 days in filing the written
version and as such the Ld. District Forum should not have allowed the
application and therefore, the impugned order should be  set aside.
          Per contra, Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps has contended that
when referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Anr –Vs-Mampee Timbers and
Hardware the order has been passed, the said order should not be interfered with.
          I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld.
Advocates appearing for the parties and seen the materials on record.
          Admittedly, there has been a delay for about three months and twenty-five
days in filing the written version. The issue has been examined by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and in a decision reported in 2016 (1) Supreme 319 [New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. – Vs. – Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.]  and it has
been held that extension of time beyond 45 days from the date of receipt of notice
could not be granted.

However, in the case of M/s. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Vs. –
M/s. Venezia Buyers’ Association, Civil Appeal Nos. 1083-84 of 2016 dated
11.02.2016 the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.  In the meantime, the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed another
order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Vs.- Mampee Timbers and
Hardwares Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal D No.2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017, in
which, it has been held Cont......P/10

::10::
C.C- 12 of 2022

“We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the Larger
Bench, it will be opened to the concerned Fora to accept the written statement
filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable
terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter”.
Therefore, in order to take advantage of the decision in the case of Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.(Supra) the O.Ps must advance reasonable
explanation for such delay.  In the instant case, it appears that the O.Ps in
paragraph 3 of show cause petition have stated-
“3. That the delay committed in filing the written statements is due to some
important document relying upon which the Opposite Party/Respondent wants to
prepare the written version”.
Surprisingly enough,  in the written version there is no reference as to any
documents. The Ld. District Forum did not consider that aspect at all.
The most important aspect of the matter is that in view of decision of Three-
Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 9SCC541(Rajeev Hitendra
Pathak and Ors. –Vs- Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr.) the Ld. District Forum
has no jurisdiction to recall or set aside its order passed earlier. Therefore, the Ld.
District Forum should have rejected the application instantly without fixing any
date for hearing as Ld. District Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the said
application being MA/89/2018.
It is manifest from the statement of Objects and Reasons and the Scheme of the
Act that its main objective is to provide for better protection of the interests of the
consumer. To achieve that purpose, a cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective

redressal mechanism is provided in the Act with wide range of powers vested upon
a Forum constituted under the Act. The said object is bound to be frustrated if in
such a casual manner an order is passed ignoring the provisions of the Act and the
mandate of Highest Court of the Land. Therefore, when the impugned order is a
perverse one, certainly it should be interfered with.

Cont......P/11

::11::
C.C- 12 of 2022

In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed on contest. However,
there will be no order as to cost.
The impugned order is hereby set aside.
The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on
30.10.2018 and on that date the Ld. District Forum will fix a date for filing
evidence on affidavit by the complainants. Applying the principle of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619(Modula
India –Vs-Kamakshya Singh Deo) the O.Ps may be permitted to file questionnaire
to test the veracity of statement of complainants witnesses and to address
argument in respect of complainants’ case”.
Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in New Assurance Co.
Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2020)5, SCC-
757 that the W/V shall be filed by the O.P within the statutory period of time of 30
days and such extended period of 15 days, in total 45 days and the Dist. Forums or
the State Commissions do not have any power to set aside its own ex-parte order.
Further, In Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar,
reported in (2011)9 SCC-541, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
hold that “the District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any
power to set aside ex-parte orders and the power of review and the powers which
have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.”
In the light of the above orders, the petition pending for vacating ex-parte
order is rejected and disposed of.

      But, in view of the above order of the Hon’ble State Commission (Supra) we
are considering the Questionnaire filed by the O.P and the Reply filed by the
Complainant. The O.P also appeared and participated in the proceeding and
advanced his argument.     

 
Now, from the Complaint petition, Evidence of the Complainant and other
materials from the record, the following points have been framed:-

Cont......P/12

::12::
C.C- 12 of 2022

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service caused by the O.P?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prays for?
-:Decision with Reasons:-

All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity, avoidance of
repetition of facts and convenience for discussion.
It is evident from the evidence of the Complainant and other materials on
record that the complainant is a Squadron Leader of Air Force, posted at
airport Bhopal Madhya Pradesh and he got one transfer letter from his
department on 09/02/2021 and after getting such transfer order, he had hired
a transport service on 07/03/2021 from the O.P, who deals in the business of
movers and packers and having shop at the above noted address in Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh, for shifting his luggage and household goods from Air Force
Station Bhopal to Air Force Station, Kurseong, and for hiring the service of
transport of luggage and household goods, the complainant had paid an
advance of Rs. 76,401/( Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred and One
only) through internet banking to the O.P out of total service amount to the

tune of Rs.94,500/( Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred only) and
subsequently he paid the total consideration amount as stated above and
thereafter the goods have been transported through a truck, being No:- MP
04GA/3774, on 08/03/2021 and the said truck met with an accident and the
goods so transported have been damaged and after the incident on
14/03/2021 the complainant received one Whats- App message from the O.P
informing him that the above noted vehicle had met with an accident at
Cont......P/13

::13::
C.C- 12 of 2022

Bergachi Thana of Araria (Bihar) and the O.P requested him not to take any
legal action as the O.P was willing to compensate the entire loss due to such
accident and the complainant having good faith in the O.P and being a
disciplined Military Officer did not take any legal proceedings. Since after the
incident on 15/03/2021 the complainant sent his representatives to the place
of occurrence wherein with the help of Bergachi Police and the local people
complainant managed to recover few luggage which were totally damaged and
beyond reparable and therefore, the complainant immediately contacted the
O.P informing him about the damaged conditions of his goods and articles and
asked for compensation.
Here in our view, the Complainant is a consumer under the O.P as per the
definition given U/S-2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Further, in order to ascertain whether the O.P was deficient in providing
service to the Complainant or not, we have to delve into the evidence and
other materials available with the record once again.
It transpires from the evidence and other materials on record that the
Complainant had made one contract with the O.P for transportation of his

household goods from his earlier place of posting to his new place of posting,
i.e. from Air Force Station Bhopal to Air Force Station, Kurseong, Village:-
Baghora via Tung P.O.&P.S Kurseong , Dist Darjeeling and for which the
complainant had hired a service from the O.P on 07.03.2021 and the
complainant had paid an advance of Rs. 76,401/( Rupees Seventy Six
Thousand Four Hundred and One only) through internet banking to the O.P.
Subsequent to that the Complainant had paid the entire agreed consideration
amount to the O.P as noted above.

Cont......P/14

::14::
C.C- 12 of 2022

The luggage and household items of the complainant were loaded in the
vehicle, being No:- MP 04GA/3774, at Air Force Station, Bhopal and the said
Vehicle left Bhopal on 08/03/2021.The complainant had provided the O.P the
OCTROI certificate with the list of household items to avoid unwanted
security issues at State Border Toll Posts.
It is further seen that on 14/03/2021 the complainant received one
Whats- App message from the O.P informing him that the above noted
vehicle had met with an accident at Bergachi Thana of Araria (Bihar) and the
O.P requested him not to take any legal action as the O.P was willing to
compensate the entire loss due to such accident and the complainant having
good faith in the O.P and being a disciplined Military Officer did not take any
legal proceedings. Since after the incident on 15/03/2021 the complainant
sent his representatives to the place of occurrence wherein with the help of
Bergachi Police and the local people complainant managed to recover few
luggage which were totally damaged and beyond reparable and therefore, the
complainant immediately contacted the O.P informing him about the
damaged conditions of his goods and articles and asked for compensation.

It is also evident that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and imposition
of lockdown the O.P started refusing to receive phone calls of the
complainant. However, after the series of telephonic discussions, the O.P sent
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant as
compensation and it is also admitted by the O.P that he had paid Rs. 50,000/
to the Complainant as settlement arrived at by and between the parties for
the loss sustained by the Complainant. The fact of accident has not been
Cont......P/15

::15::
C.C- 12 of 2022

denied by the O.P. It is the contention of the O.P that in the accident no
goods were damaged as the vehicle had overturned and landed in a river
where most of the goods got wet. Thereafter, keeping in conformity with
effective services he took all necessary steps including arranging for a crane in
order to lift the vehicle, where he incurred an expense of Rs.30,000/ and
further local swimmers were also hired for the purpose of picking up the
goods for which he again had to pay an amount of Rs.18,000/. The O.P
submitted that he had taken several steps further for drying up the goods and
then shifted to by hiring another vehicle to its designated site for which he
had paid an amount of Rs. 55,000/. The O.P further submitted that most of
the goods were old wooden furniture, fridge and one bullet Motor Cycle and
he took care of all the goods and did his best as he could. The O.P further
contended that the Complainant claimed for Rs.2,00,000/ from the O.P and
after negotiation the O.P had paid Rs. 50,000/ to the Complainant as final
settlement amount and further stated that no deficiency of service could be
attributed against the O.P and the case is liable to be dismissed.
It is further seen from the case record that the Complainant has
submitted some documents, such as list of household goods, Xerox photo of
the damaged goods etc in order to prove his case.

Considering the above materials on record, we are of the view that it is
the admitted position that the vehicle which was ferrying household goods of
the Complainant met with an accident and the O.P also from the other side
proved the case of the Complainant by paying Rs.50,000/. Had the O.P not
paid the said amount of Rs.50,000/ the case of the Complainant could be
otherwise. Once the O.P has paid the compensation amount to the
Complainant, whatever the meagre amount it was, it could be safely

Cont......P/16

::16::
C.C- 12 of 2022

concluded that the goods of the Complainant had been damaged.
Therefore, in our view, the O.P was deficient in providing service to the
Complainant and for which the O.P is liable to pay compensation to the
Complainant.
But, after further scrutiny of the case record, we find no document
submitted by the Complainant from which we can deduce or ascertain the
quantum of loss suffered by the Complainant. It is the settled principle of law
that the burden of proving the case lies upon the Complainant only. Here, the
Complainant did not file any petition praying for appointment of any
Commissioner for inspection of the damaged goods for the purpose of
ascertains the loss or damages. Due to lack of such document, we are unable
to access the loss suffered by the Complainant and therefore we are
refraining ourselves to pass any award on the head of loss suffered by the
Complainant as claimed.
But, as the accident has been admitted and the O.P has already paid an
amount of Rs.50,000/ to the Complainant as settlement amount, the
Complainant must have suffered some agony, mental pain, physical
sufferings, anxiety etc. and for that we are of the view that the Complainant
must be compensated on that head by the O.P. And considering the nature
and gravity of the case and having considered the factual aspects, as stated
above, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/( Rupees One Lakh

Only) would be just and proper in order to mitigate the loss suffered by the
Complainant and the O.P is liable to pay the same.
Further, as the Complainant did not specifically mention the amount of
cost of the proceedings in his petition and most of the time he has personally
appeared before this Commission and conducted his case, we are refraining
ourselves to pass any award under this head. The case of the Complainant is
thus succeeds, but in part.

Cont......P/17

::17::
C.C- 12 of 2022
Hence

It is ordered that-
The instant Consumer Complaint, being No:- C.C- 12 of 2022 is allowed, but
in part.
The O.P is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh
only) to the Complainant as Compensation within one month from this day
of order, otherwise the above amount shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a(S.I),
which shall be computed on and from 28.07.2023 till realization.
No order as to costs.
All the pending petitions are disposed of.
In default, the Complainant is at liberty to put the entire order under
execution as per the provision of C.P .Act, 2019.
Let a free Copy of this order be given to each of the parties as per the C.P
Rules & Regulations,2020.