ORDER
Date of order: 10-08-2017
Upendra Jha,Member
This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the District Forum, Vaishali, Hajipur in Complaint Case No. 114 of 2010 by which the appellant, Respondent No. 2,3 and 4 are directed to pay the respondent No. 1 Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost jointly 7 and severally within 45 days otherwise 12% interest will be payable.
2. The Complainanant-respondent No. 1 deposited Rs. 2,780/- in cash on 16.12.2008 on L.I.C counter and got receipt No. 2318194 dated 16.01.2008. When L.I.C Bond was not received, he sent legal notice to the concerned opposite party. But no action was taken. The complainant filed a complaint before District Forum, Vaishali on 15.12.2016 for direction to opposite parties for payment of Rs. 95,000/- The opposite parties contested the case District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.
3. Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard.
4. District Forum found and hold deficiency on the part of the appellant as well as respondent No. 2,3 and 4 for not issuing L.I.C Policy bond in favour of the respondent complainant has passed the impugned order.
5. The counsel for the appellants submits that the complainant had filed a complaint case No. 114 of 2010 against the appellant. After considering the matter the appellant issued a cheque date 01.08.2011 for Rs. 2,788/- an amount which was received by the appellant given by the respondent no. 1. The complainant received this cheque on 12.08.2011 and the District Forum dropped the complaint case according by order dated 12.08.2011 which is on the record as annexure-III. This amount was received by the complainant without any protest. But he again filed an appeal before this commission. This Commission order dated 19.05.2014 in appeal case No. 452/11 the case was remanded to District Forum who has passed an illegal order and has surpassed its own order dated 12.08.2011 of appellant is not a consumer and this is not a consumer dispute District Forum order is not sustainable. It is fit to be set aside. The appeal be allowed.
6. The counsel for the respondent complainant submits that the District Forum had passed the order in complaint case 114/2010 by which the amount in question Rs. 2,788/- was received by the complainant but the District Forum order was challenged before the commission by the complainant which was remanded by this commission vide order dated 19.05.2014 with direction to examine the role of Respondent No. 02. The District Forum has passed this order which has been challenged by the appellant. The appeal has no merit Hence, the District Forum order be affirmed and the appeal be dismissed.
7. Having considered the ground of appeal the submission of parties and on perusal of the order passed twice by the District Forum it appears that the appellant had actually received Rs. 2,788/- from the complainant and receipt was issued on 16.12.2008. The appellant as well as the respondent 2,3,4 had the responsibility to get the L.I.C policy done in favour of the complainant within a short period but it was not done. This is deficiency on the part of the appellant and the respondents no. 2,3 and 4. When the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party- appellant by the order of the District Forum Rs. 2,788/- was returned by cheque dated 01.08.2011 to the complainant. For these reasons the district forum order seems proper and justified. However, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 15,000/- do not seem proper and just. It is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with litigation cost. This amount be paid to the complainant respondent by the appellant and Respondent no. 2,3 & 4 jointly and severally within two months from the receipt of this order failing which 10% interest will be payable with this modification the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is partly allowed.
.
S.K.Sinha Upendra Jha
President Member (M)
Anita
