RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 60 OF 2014
- M/s. Adarsha Diagnostics Centre
Situated at City Tower
Wajid Pur, Tiraha
Jaunpur
Through its Partner
- Smt. Nisha Singh
W/o Dr. Subhash Singh
Partner M/s. Adarsha Diagnostics Centre
Situated at City Tower, Wajid Pur
Tiraha, Jaunpur.
- Mr. Sunil Tripathi
Partner of M/s. Adarsha Diagnostics Center
Situated at City Tower, Tiraha Wajid Pur
Tiraha, Jaunpur.
...Complainants
Vs.
- New India Assurance Company Limited
Branch Office situated at Govind Bhawan
37, Shiv Chharan Lal Road
Allahabad
Through its Branch Manager
- Mr. M C Srivastava
Broker (1D9771243)
New India Assurance Company Limited
Branch Office situated at Govind Bhawan
37, Shiv Chharan Lal Road
Allahabad
- Mr. Anuj Srivastava
Agent/Bancassurance (AG00011555)
New India Assurance Company Limited
Branch Office situated at Govind Bhawan
37, Shiv Chharan Lal Road
Allahabad
... Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. JUGUL KISHORE, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Sri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Sri I. P. S. Chadha, Advocate.
:2:
Dated : 27-08-2015
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
This complaint case has been filed by the complainant for the reliefs as follows;
- to quash the letter dated 25-03-2013 and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.19,13,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs and thirteen thousand only) alongwith interest at the rate of 24% from the date of the claim till the date of the payment.
- Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) as damages for committing deficiency in service and for the harassment and metal agony caused to the complainants.
- Direct the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay a consolidated amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) to the complainants.
- Direct the opposite parties to pay appropriate sum as compensation to the complainants on account of Unfair Trade Practice.
- Award appropriate Punitive Damages on the opposite parties and its erring officers for violating the provisions of the Insurance Act and in complete violation of the principle of Law laid down by various courts and tribunals.
- Direct the opposite parties to make good loss of the income which the complainant was deprived on account of the non payment of the insured sum and also the interest they have to pay on the repayment of loan.
- Direct the opposite parties not to adopt such kind of Unfair Trade Practice in near future.
- Allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards cost of the case.
- Any other order which this Hon’ble State Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant no. 1 is
:3:
a partnership firm and complainant nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the firm which is engaged in the pathological examination of the patients of District Jaunpur and for the purposes of rendering efficacious services to the patients of District Jaunpur a refurbished C.T. Scanner Model X-Lead worth Rs.28,63,421/- was purchased by them and Annual Maintenance Charges as well as other charges were also paid by the complainant. Prior to issue the insurance policy the opposite parties deployed their agents to inspect the machine and to give their report on the feasibility of the insurance coverage to be granted. To this effect the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had also inspected the machine. The premium which was calculated by the opposite parties was Rs.1,09256/- and Policy No.42080244125800000021 which was effective from 29.08.2012 to 28.08.2013 was issued by the Opposite parties. The X-ray Tube is the vital component of that C.T. Scan Machine and the premium of Rs.1,09256/- was calculated by opposite parties taking into consideration the value of the X-ray Tube of the machine. Unfortunately the machine was dead on 16.09.2012 and on it's diagnosis, it was revealed that there is a problem in the X-ray Tube. The opposite parties were informed who after inspection directed the complainant to purchase a new X-ray Tube and a new X-Ray Tube worth Rs.19,13,000/- was purchased on 28.11.2012 by the complainants and the bill of that was submitted by the complainants with the opposite parties but no claim was paid by the opposite parties to the complainant under the policy rather by letter dated 25.03.2013 the claim was treated as No Claim.
This complaint Case was admitted by this Commission on 15.05.2014 and notices were issued to the opposite parties to file their written version which was not filed within the stipulated period of 30 days and even in extended period of 15 days. An application dated 05.01.2015 was moved by the complainant to proceed ex-parte against the opposite parties. On 02.07.2015 the following order was passed:
02/07/2015
श्री सर्वेश कुमार शर्मा विद्वान अधिवक्ता उपस्थित हैं जबकि विपक्षी की ओर से आई0पी0एस0 चड्ढा उपस्थित हैं। उन्होंने बताया कि लिखित कथन इस मामले
:4:
में प्रस्तुत कर दिया है और वह अपना साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने के लिए समय चाहते हैं जबकि पत्रावली का अवलोकन यह दर्शाता है कि ५ जनवरी २०१५ से अभिलेख पर धारा १३ (२) (ii) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम १९८६ का प्रार्थना पत्र लंबित है जिसमें विपक्षी के लिखित कथन के समय को समाप्त किए जाने के कारण लिखित कथन अस्वीकार किए जाने की याचना है। अत: उक्त प्रार्थना पत्र के परिप्रेक्ष्य में विपक्षी के लिखित कथन एवं साक्ष्य यदि उनकी ओर से प्रस्तुत किया जाता है, के बावत सुनवाई हेतु यह परिवाद दिनांक १०/०७/२०१५ को सूचीबद्ध हो।
This commission on 10.07.2015 passed the following order:
10.07.2015
आज यह पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुई। श्री सर्वेश कुमार शर्मा विद्वान अधिवक्ता परिवादी एवं श्री आई0पी0एस0 चड्ढा विद्वान अधिवक्ता विपक्षी उपस्िथत हैं। आज यह पत्रावली धारा-13(2)(ii) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के परिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र पर सुनवाई के लिए लम्बित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा समय-सीमा अवधि के बाद प्रस्तुत किया गया लिखित कथन स्वीकार न किया जाए। विपक्षी का तर्क है कि उन्होंने अपना साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कर दिया है और लिखित तर्क भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया है, जिस पर विचार किया जाना चाहिए, जबकि परिवादी का तर्क है कि लिखित कथन धारा-13(2)(ii) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के प्रावधानानुसार स्वीकार न किए जाने की स्थिति में विपक्षी द्वारा दिया गया साक्ष्य भी विचारणीय नहीं है। दोनों पक्षों को सुना गया। इस बिन्दु पर निर्णय सुरक्षित।
Exhaustive arguments on the point of the admissibility of the written statement after the period of the limitation provided under Section 13(2) have been heard. It has been argued by the counsel for the opposite parties that Section 13 provides for decision of the case on the basis of
:5:
the evidence of the parties and in an eventuality the written version is struck off even then the provision warrants that the opposite parties can file their evidence and written arguments. He referred section 13 of Consumer Protection Act which runs as follows:
Section 13. Procedure on [admission] of complaint
(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaint [admitted] by it under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,—
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute,—
on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
(ii) [ex parte] on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum;
[(c) where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits.]
(3) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.
[(3-A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the
:6:
complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities:
Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum:
Provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act:
Provided also that in the event of a complaint being disposed of after the period so specified, the District Forum shall record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of disposing of the said complaint.
It has been argued by the counsel for the opposite parties that in section 13(2)(b)(ii), there is no bar to file the evidence although the opportunity to file the written statement has been closed and the District Forum and State Commission are bound to decide the case on the basis of the evidence available on record. Per contra the counsel for the complainant argued that the procedure of Section 13 is meticulous and 13(2)(b)(ii) applies only when the opposite parties fails to file the written version and the provision under this section is clear that the evidence brought to the notice by the complainant in the case is to be considered but the same did not provide benefit to file the evidence in the case by the opposite parties, once the opportunity to file the written statement has been closed or is lapsed.
The question which arisen for consideration is whether the period of limitation as is prescribed under Section 13(2)(b) is mandatory or directory. With respect to this the case laws placed in the complaint case have been scrutinized. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J.Merchant and others versus Srinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC Page 635, held as follows:
15. Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there is a failure to file such written statement within the stipulated time, the court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more. Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum
:7:
45 days for filing the version by the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to.
16. Further, under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Commission or the Forum is empowered to exercise the powers vested in the civil court for discovery and production of any document, the reception of evidence on affidavit and of issuing of any commission qua examination of any witness.
17. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can certainly refer to Order 7 Rule 14 which provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in the court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. It appears that this mandatory requirement is not followed and thereafter, there is complaint of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written statement under Order 8 Rule 1-A, the defendant is required to produce the documents relied upon by him when written submission is presented. The Commission can always insist on production of all documents relied upon by the parties along with the complaint and the defence version.
The next judgment which has been placed before this Commission is Kajpipla Co-operative Housing Society Limited versus Magic Properties Private Limited and another reported in 2014 (1) CPC page 197 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed :
6. We are of the considered view, that C.P. Act and CPC envisage two different procedure. Under the C.P.C., there is no time frame. Under C.P. Act, a consumer complaint has to be decided, within 180 days and Revision Petition and First Appeal are to be decided, within 90 days. Moreover, C.P.C. provides a long procedure but the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provide a summary procedure. Order 8 Rule 1 cannot be equated with Section 13 of the C.P. Act.
The Hon’ble National Commission in TATA AIG General
:8:
Insurance Company Limited versus Kanan Knitwear Revision Petition No. 4799 of 2013 decided on 06.01.2014 observed:
10. While repeating observations made by the Apex Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors. (supra), we hereby find that “extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing howsoever, briefly by the court on its being specified.” No reason at all has been cited. It must be borne in mind that the procedure of C.P.C. and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are entirely different. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisages a summary procedure. Section 13 clause 3(A) runs as follows:
“13(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities:
Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum
Provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act.
Provided also that in the event of a complaint being disposed of after the period so specified, the District Forum shall record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of disposing of the said complaint.”
It is thus clear that in the instant case, three months’ time after the receipt of the notice had already elapsed. Consequently, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8166 of 2014 Kolte Patil Dev. Ltd. versus Bhupendra Bhandari, granted time to the petitioner to file the written statement subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 1 Lakhs.
On perusal of the aforementioned case laws as well as the procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the decisive opinion that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides a
:9:
separate procedure to be followed by the Consumer Councils established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protraction Act, 1986. The Act is enacted for the better protection to the consumers and to provide speedy and efficacious remedy within the stipulated time frame. The Consumer Forums are supposed to guard itself against the delaying tactics adopted by the opposite parties. In the instant case the complaint case was admitted and notices of the case were issued to the opposite parties wherein the written statement has been filed belatedly only on 26.03.2015 and the objection to the application under Section 13(2) is filed by the opposite parties on 10.07.2015.
It has been submitted in the objection that the summons were received by them of the case to file the written version fixing the date as 19.09.2014 and vakalatnama was filed by the counsel on that date and thereafter the date has been fixed to 02.03.2015. Since there was “No Adverse Day” on the date fixed and thereafter the date was posted to 26.03.2015 on which date the written statement was filed and since the copy of the written statement was received by the counsel for the complainant without any objection/protest, thus the complainant is now stopped to press the earlier application filed under Section 13(2). The opposite party is a Government Company and did not have intention to commit delay in the case.
The question which arisen for our consideration is whether the delay has been committed by the opposite parties in filing the written statement and whether there is any sufficient cause with respect to the condonation of the delay in filing the written statement, At the very outset it may be concluded that the opposite parties have not only committed delay in filing the written version but have also made vague plea for not filing the same within the stipulated period of time. It is to borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special socio economic legislation aimed and intended to protect the interest of the consumer and the procedure underline the Act made it explicit to decide and dispose of the complaint case within a time bound manner. To that effect even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant Case (supra) has laid down guidelines for the disposal of the cases within the
:10:
stipulated period of time frame and a note of caution has been given to the consumer forums to strictly adhere with the provision of Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the instant case the case was admitted on 15.05.2014, thereafter admittedly the opposite parties appeared on 19.09.2014 but strangely they did not choose to file the reply rather only vakalatnama of the counsel was filed Thereafter the opposite parties did not choose to file the written statement on 02.03.2015 stating the day being No Adverse Day observed by lawyers call. However the written statement is filed only on 26.03.2015. Thus there is a delay of about 8 months if calculated after 2 months from the date of admission of the case. With respect to the filing of the documents the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 under Regulation 10(6) provides that the document can be filed after serving the copy on the other side with the registrar. Further Regulation 22 provides for the inspection of the case file. Thus there was no impediment on the part of the opposite party to have filed the written version on 19.09.2014 or thereafter within the stipulated time after serving the copy of the complaint. Thus the grounds of the objection are wholly vague and misconceived. Once the opportunity to file written statement is closed then the opposite party cannot take advantage of Section 13(2)(b)(i) as in that eventuality Section 13(2)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the forum is bound to decide the case on the evidence brought on record by the complainant. However there is no embargo on the part of the opposite party to appear and argue the case. Thus the legal issue with respect to Section 13(2) and its applicability in the complaint case stood decided.
However looking at the peculiar circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that all the pleadings have been filed by the opposite parties and in the interest of justice considering the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order passed in Kolte Patil Case (supra) we take on record the written statement and evidence as well as written arguments filed by the opposite parties, subject to the cost of Rs.50000/- which shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Evidences filed by the complainant:
Annexure No.1 Page 15 is the proforma invoice of Refurbished
:11:
Toshiba C.T. Scanner Model X-Lead valuing Rs.22,00,000/-, Page 16 is the Installation Charges of Rs.1,81,324/-, Page 17 is the invoice of the used Toshiba CT Scanner Model X-Lead valuing Rs.15,36,579/-, Page 18 is the amount paid towards Custom Duty, Clearing Forwarding, CFS, D.O. charges and other Misc. Expenses for Rs.2,42,906/-, page 19 is the other sales of Rs.18,236/-, Page 20 is the Annual Maintenance Charges for the year 2011 to 2012 amounting to Rs.1,81,324/-.
Annexure No.2 Page No.21 is the Policy of Insurance titled as Electronic Equipment Insurance Policy, it mentioned Divisional Office/Broker Mr. M. C. Srivastava and Agent Mr. Anuj Srivastava, the items which was covered under the policy are mentioned and make was year 2011 total sum insured Rs.48,61,800/-.
Annexure No.3 Page No.25 is the Tax Invoice of the New X-ray Tube valued rs.19,13,000/-
Annexure No.4 Page No. 26 is the letter of repudiation dated 25-03-2013.
Evidences filed by the opposite party:
- Affidavit of Evidence has also been filed by the opposite parties, along with the affidavit following documents are filed:
- Annexure No. 1 Electronic Equipment Insurance Policy.
- Annexure No. 2 Letter dated 27.09.2012 issued by Sanjay Kumar Srivastava.
- Annexure No. 3 Report of the surveyor Mr Sanjay Kumar Srivastava dated 22.03.2013.
- Letter of repudiation dated 25.03.2013.
Towards the merits of the case, the opposite parties did not deny that the insurance policy was issued to cover the refurbished machine and loss was caused. It is said by the company that the surveyor was appointed who conducted the survey. It is also said that the policy was effective from 29.08.2012 to 28.08.2013 and the loss occasioned on 16.09.2012 that is within short span of 17 days. Surveyor Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava demanded documents vide letter dated 27.09.2012. Surveyor prepared exhaustive report and pointed out following discrepancies:
:12:
- Trained and experienced staff operated the CT Scan Machine. There was no AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) to the said machine as reported by the insured.
- Warranty period of the said machine had already expired, as reported by the insured.
- The insured had purchased the said machine in the year 2011 and installed the same on 29.07.2011 as refurbished (reconditioned) machine, which meant that the said machine had been used and then the manufacturer purchased the machine in second hand condition and refurbished and sold it to the complainants to below the cost of a new machine.
- At the time of survey, the surveyor observed that in the number plate of the CT Tube of the said machine, that the replacement date was mentioned as 2007-1-27. It meant that the CT Tube was replaced in the refurbished machine on 27.01.2007, hence the CT Tube was more than 5 years old from the date of the said loss i.e. 16.09.2012.
- The damaged CT Tube consisting X-Ray Tube had a certain life span which was about 5 years, hence the life of the aforesaid CT Tube had expired and as such 100% depreciation was applicable upon the said CT Tube.
- The surveyor also downloaded the relevant data from the internet which completely corroborated the same.
- Thus in view of the aforesaid depreciation was deductible at the rate of 100% and as such no amount could have been payable for the said claim.
It has been further stated by the opposite parties that the depreciation of the CT Tube is 100% as the CT Tube is more than 5 years old, hence, the amount under the policy is not payable and thus the opposite party closed the file as No Claim. No deficiency in service has been committed by the opposite parties in deciding the claim of the complainant and the claim has been decided in terms of the Policy Terms and Conditions. It has also been submitted that the complainant could not have been granted any privilege beyond the terms of the policy. By means of the written statement certain preliminary objection was raised.
:13:
It has been submitted that the complainant is a commercial organization and as such the services are availed for commercial purposes, thus, consumer jurisdiction is not attracted. Further it has been objected that the matter involves complicated issues and should be relegated to the competent civil court for adjudication.
The question which requires to be adjudicated in the instant case is whether the CT Tube which is a component of the machine was insured with machine or separately and whether in view of Terms and Conditions of insurance the loss is payable or not. The factum of the insurance of refurbished machine is not denied. Even the policy mention that the year of the make of machine is year 2011 and the insurance cover is granted with effect from 29.08.2012 to 28.08.2013. Premium of Rs.109256/- was charged. The policy did not mention that the any component of the machine was being insured separately. Thus the averment of the opposite party that the CT Tube was of the make 2007 and depreciation is 100% is of no avail. Of course we would have considered this aspect in case the CT Tube would have been insured separately by the opposite parties and the premium would have been charged under different heads. The documents which are on record along with the complaint case has also been admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement and the insurance company was well aware of the fact that refurbished machine of 2011 is being insured by them. Thus the plea that the component of the machine was of the year 2007 is not at all sustainable. The proforma invoice clearly provides that the machine is refurbished. Documents establish the fact that complainant paid Annual Maintenance Charges for the year 2011-2012. Thus prima facia the repudiation letter dated 25.03.2013 is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. More so there are no terms and conditions in the policy which debar the payment of insurance in an eventuality of the machine being dead on the failure of the internal component. The Hon’ble National Commission in Indraprastha Gas Limited versus New India Assurance Company Limited and other reported in I(2015) CPJ 279 (NC) held that the terms and conditions of the policy are to be explicit and ................(paragraph 9 of judgment), in this judgment in paragraph 16 the Hon’ble National
:14:
Commission dealt with the objection with respect to the commercial purpose as agitated by the opposite parties.
We have gone through the surveyor report on record dated 22.03.2013 in which the surveyor has observed that he noticed that the CT Tube replacement date mentioned was 27.01.2007 and it was 5 years old which means there is 100% depreciation. Further the surveyor commented that he enquired with the repair engineer about the life of the CT Tube slice wise who reported that the life of the tube is about 400000 to 500000 slice seconds and at the time of survey the insured CT scan machine scan reading was showing 44601 slice seconds as on 20.09.2012 and the repair engineer also reported that, when the refurbished machine was sold the scan reading meter became zero slice seconds……….Hence he cannot calculate the life of CT Tube from slice wise since the above damaged CT Tube is more than 5 years old and fitted in insured refurbished CT Scan Machine. Hence he considered only life of CT Tube on age wise usage.
If these comments are believed than apart from the own opinion of the surveyor there is no expert opinion on record and thus how can it be arrived that the CT Tube was 5 years old and is 100% depreciated. This contention without there being any expert technical report cannot be relied upon depriving the complainant of indemnification of loss. Moreover there is no allegation of Fraud and Forgery in the instant case. Neither there are any terms and conditions in the policy which insured the CT Tube differently from the machine. Even the surveyor reported that at the time of visit the reading was only 44601 slice second whereas the life of CT Tube is 4,00,000 to 5,00,000 slice second thus the observation of the surveyor personal opinion cannot be relied to repudiate the claim, while there is no mention of any allegation of Fraud and Forgery committed by the complainant.
Surveyor has himself assessed the loss to Rs.19,13,000/- however in view of 100% depreciation the same was observed to be not payable.
In our opinion the insurance company failed to place on record any terms and conditions in the policy with respect to the CT Tube to be insured
:15:
separately apart from the machine. Further the insurance company also failed to establish that the CT Tube is of the make 2007 and the depreciation is 100% in lack of any expert opinion. Therefore the complaint deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
This complaint is hereby allowed. The complainant shall be entitle to get Rs.19,13,000/- as has been assessed by the surveyor and Rs.50,000/- as cost. The claim amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint case payable within two months failing which the interest shall be paid at the rate of 12%. Cost of the case Rs.25,000/- shall also be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.
( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH )
PRESIDENT
( JUGUL KISHORE )
MEMBER
pnt
