Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2016

Date of filing: 18.03.2016                                                                                Date of disposal: 07.07.2017

Complainant :            Maa Tara Transport Co., having its office West Court Road, P.O. Asansol, P.S.- Asansol(South), Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713304, represented by its Proprietor Barsan Chatterjee.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Parties: 1:               National Insurance Company Ltd., Asansol Branch, having its branch office at 46, G.T. Road, Durga Market, P.O. & P.S.Asansol, Dist-Burdwan,  Pin-713301, represented by its Branch Manager.

2.              National Insurance Company Ltd., Asansol Branch, having its Divisional Office at Asansol, P.O. & P.S.-Asansol, Dist.-Burdwan, represented by its Divisional Manager.

3.              National Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton Street, P.O. Box No.9229, Kolkata700 071, represented by its Chairman.

Present :   Hon’ble Member :  Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

               Hon’ble President :  Silpi Majumder.

Appeared for the Complainant                           : Subrata Ghosh & Debdas Rudra.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 to 3     : Shyamal Kumar Ganguly.

J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service. as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have repudiated his legitimate insurance claim illegally and arbitrarily on flimsy pretext.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that his registered vehicle was under the coverage of an insurance policy obtained from the OP-1 for the period from 08.11.2012 to 07.11.2013. On 01.04.2013 the said vehicle collided behind a truck on NH-2 near Galsi Police Station while going in empty condition towards Burdwan. The helper of the said truck became unconscious due to sudden accident and he was trapped with the folded, twisted cabin and pulled out by the police. Thereafter the said helper was sent to BMCH and his condition was so serious the BMCH referred him to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata. The vehicle was seriously damaged and so it was towed by crane and the vehicle was kept under the custody of Galsi police Station while the cabin was lying the side of the accident spot. Due to sudden accident as well as serious injury of the helper the Complainant could not recollect as to when he heard the information and immediately rushed to the hospital without any delay. The Complainant at that point of time could not decide what to do and how to recover the life of the helper from his serious injury. Due to this reason the complainant could not give the intimation to the OPs at that moment. Thereafter the complainant intimated the intimation of accident of his insured truck to the OP-1 on 03.04.2013 and requested to make necessary proceedings towards claim registration after observing with all the official formalities. The Complainant also stated in the said intimation letter that after the accident the Complainant went to the Galsi police Station but the PS refused to register GD or FIR under the reason of no injury. The OP-1 received the said intimation letter on 03.04.2013 from the Complainant. Upon receipt of the intimation letter dated 03.04.2013 the OP-1 sent a letter to the Complainant stating that they had issued a claim form and requested the Complainant to submit completed claim form with estimate, all vehicular documents including driving license, FIR, seizure list, admission & discharge certificate in respect of the injured helper. The OP-1 also stated in the said letter that they had already deputed Mr. A.K. Khanuja, Surveyor for spot survey and requested the Complainant to provide necessary assistance, if any to the Surveyor. On 29.04.2013 the Complainant wrote a letter to the Officer-in-Charge of Galsi Police Station intimating about the damage of the said truck and requested to return back the said truck at Asansol for repairing. The Galsi Police Station received the said letter from the Complainant on the same day i.e. 29.04.2013.  On 04.06.2013 the Complainant submitted all the required documents to the OP-1 along with a letter for settlement of the claim. The OP-1 received the same from the Complainant on the same day. The OPs sent a letter to the Complainant on 20.03.2014 stating that their Investigator Sri B.K. Mukhopadhyay was unable to verify the driving license from the MV Department, Asansol and requested the Complainant to provide a valid driving license in original and explained the unavailability of the driving license with the MV Department to enable them to process the claim further. On 22.07.2014 the OP-1 sent a letter to the Complainant stating that they had sincerely examined the file of the Complainant and said that the claim might be settled on net of salvage basis as assessed by the Surveyor, subject to production of the effective driving license and the written consent of the Complainant. Upon receipt of the said letter the Complainant sent a reply on 08.08.2014g that he was not agree with the estimated salvage value by the surveyor amounting to Rs.1,75,000=00. The Complainant also stated that he followed the office demand and produced the license which was valid under the MVI, Asansol. But the NOC was issued from RTO, Asasol and as per the report of the NOC it would be evident that the license was original on the date of accident and requested the OPs to understand the matter and settled the issue without any further delay keeping all technical bindings away. After discussion with the Surveyor appointed by the OPs, the Complainant signed ready format of consent letter sent by the OP-1 on 22.08.2014 and stated that he was agreed to accept the compensation amount against the said accidental vehicle amounting to Rs.2,98,824=00 on net of salvage basis settlement. The Complainant also stated in the said letter that he is also agreed to retain the salvage and to surrender the original Insurance Policy to the OP for cancellation with effect from 02.04.2013 and so the Complainant requested the OP-1 to settle the claim at the earliest. The OP-1 received the said consent letter on 25.08.2014. After receiving the consent letter by the OP-1 on 25.08.2014 the OPs did not settle the claim. Thereafter the Complainant again sent a letter on 16.09.2014 to the OP-1 requesting to settle the claim and try to release the payment immediately. The OP-1 received the said letter on 16.09.2014 but not a single response came from their part. Thereafter on 17.10.2014 the Complainant sent a letter to the OP-1 stating that despite of vigorous attempt the Complainant could not collect the particulars of the driving license no-WB 37/2000141033 from local RTA Office, but the office declared their helplessness of issuing particulars as NOC was already issued and told that there is automatic system lock in software system if once NOC is issued. Accordingly it was not possible in that situation. The Complainant told that he can produce another valid driving license of the concerned department, if permitted by the OPs. Co-incidentally the Complainant has another valid driving license having different number. So the Complainant requested the OPs to convey their decision to him as early as possible as he became frustrated with this matter along with severe financial hardship. On 11.11.2014 the OP-1 sent a letter to the Complainant stating that in connection with the letter dated 29.10.2014 sent by the OP-1, the expected reply within the stipulated period has not been received by the OPs. It has been established that the driving license in question was in effective at the time of accident. In view of the in-effective driving license the claim was not admissible under the policy and thereby the OPs repudiated the claim of the Complainant. It was also stated in the said repudiation letter that the Company would not be in position to entertain any further correspondence with the Complainant under the captioned claim.  According to the Complainant that the ground taken by the OP-1 in the repudiation letter is illegal, arbitrary, ill-motive and beyond the provisions of law, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Upon receipt of the repudiation letter the Complainant again sent a letter dated 28.11.2014 stating that no such letter dated 29.10.2014 was received by the Complainant and so there was no question of expectation for reply within the stipulated period. Moreover inspite of giving the explanation of non-availability of the particulars of the driving license from the competent authority vide letter dated 16.09.2014 where it was found that the driving license was original but valid status not clear as NOC released well before. The OPs have repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground of ineffective driving license at the time of accident which also amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. So the Complainant requested the OPs to consider the claim as early as possible. But no fruitful result came from the part of the OPs. On 27.01.2015 the Complainant again wrote a letter to the OP-1 requesting to consider the claim earnestly because he has been suffering a huge mental pain, agony and harassment, but the OPs neither paid any heed to the request of the Complainant nor took any appropriate steps to settle the claim which also amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The Complainant wrote another letter dated 28.01.2015 to the Regional manager, NIC Limited requesting them to interfere in the matter of repudiation ground taken by the OP-1 and declaring that there are so many telephonic records of assurances from the OP-1 towards solution with the Complainant and attached the repudiation letter along with corresponding letters for their kind perusal. But this time also not a single response came from their part, which indicates deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The Complainant requested the OPs on several times to consider the claim, but to no effect.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the service of the OPs the Complainant lodged a complaint before the office of the Insurance Ombudsman against the OP-1. Upon receipt of the complaint the Assistant Secretary of the Insurance Ombudsman sent a letter to the Complainant to attend the hearing on 07.12.2015 at Durgapur along with all documents. The Complainant attended the hearing and the Divisional Manager and the Senior Branch Manager of the NIC Limited was also present in the said hearing, but no fruitful result yielded. Therefore the Insurance Ombudsman by issuing letter dated 08.01.2016 requested the Complainant to lodge a fresh complaint before any Forum/Court to get relief. So having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,98,824=00 to him towards the damage of the accidental vehicle as per coverage of the policy, Rs.3,00,000=00 as compensation due to harassment, mental pain and agony as well as natural depreciation, demurrage, parking charges etc for about two and half years and to pay litigation cost of Rs.30,000=00 to him along with other reliefs as deem fit.

The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing conjoint written version contending that the Complainant was enjoying an insurance policy in respect of his truck for the period of coverage between 08.11.2012 to 07.11.2013 and the policy was operative under certain terms and conditions. The policy was obtained from the OP-1 by making of due premium amount of Rs.15, 792=00. The owner of the said truck intimated the OP-1 about the incident of accident of the said vehicle on 01.04.2013 on NH-2 near Galsi Police Station by issuing letter dated 03.04.2013. On 03.04.2013 the OP-1 intimated the Complainant by issuing letter that the claim form is being issued and requested him to submit complete claim form with estimate, all vehicle documents, FIR/MA case, seizure list regarding accident, admission and discharge certificate of the injured helper etc. The Insurance Company deputed Mr. A.K. Khanuja, Surveyor for spot survey and request was made to the Complainant to render assistance to the surveyor. The Complainant intimated the officer-in-charge of Galsi PS regarding damage of the insured vehicle due to accident on 29.04.2013 with a request to give permission to take back the truck at Asansol for its necessary repairing. The Complainant by issuing letter dated 04.06.2013 submitted some documents to the OP-1 i.e. Xerox copy of the Blue Book, Tax Token, Insurance Certificate, Driving License, Estimate/Quotation in original. The OP-1 issued a letter to the Complainant on 20.03.2014 stating that the Investigator Sri B.k. Mukhopadhyay so appointed by the Insurance Company was unable to verify the driving license from MV Department, Asansol who did not provide any details and in view of the above request was made to the Complainant to provide a valid driving license in original with endorsement of validity of driving license to be obtained from MV Department, Asansol to process the claim. On 22.07.2014 the OP-1 intimated the Complainant that the claim may be settled on net salvage basis as assessed by the Surveyor subject to production of effective driving license along with letter of written consent by the Complainant. In the said letter it was mentioned that the OP-1 requested by issuing letter dated 27.02.2014 for submission of documents like DL, FIR/MA case, seizure list, admission and discharge of the injured khalasi/helper and towing bill. It was also requested to provide the above documents within a period of 15 days to take next course of action by the OP-1. The Complainant in his reply on 08.08.2014 stated that it requires some time to collect the DL from the driver who wants to surrender of NOC for cancellation at RTO, Asansol and when it would be available the same would be forwarded to the OP-1. After number of correspondence the OP-1 vide their letter dated 11.11.2014 intimated the Complainant that they did not receive the reply from him regarding the letter dated 29.10.2014 within the stipulated time and it has been established that the DL in question was ineffective at the time of accident, hence the claim is not admissible as per the policy condition and repudiated the same and it was also intimated that the company will not be a position to entertain further correspondence in this regard. Being aggrieved the Complainant approached before the Insurance Ombudsman by filing a complaint and after hearing from the both parties the Ombudsman was pleased to observe that there was no valid driving license on the date of accident, therefore we are not in a position to interfere with the repudiation of the claim and under the heading “Award” it has been opined that ‘taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by insurer during course of hearing, NIL claim amount hereby awarded to be paid by insurer to the insured to the full and final settlement. Hence the complaint is closed’. According to the OPs that as the Complainant had failed to provide any effective driving license of the driver of the said vehicle involved in the accident dated 01.04.2013 and in this manner as the Complainant has violated the policy condition, the claim was rightly repudiated. The information of repudiation of the claim was duly intimated to the Complainant by issuing repudiation letter, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence prayer is made by the OPs for dismissal of the complaint being vexatious one.   

            The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with several documents in support of his contention.  The OPs have also filed several documents in support of their contentions.

            We have carefully perused the record; documents submitted by the contesting parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties. it is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in the case in hand i.e. the vehicle of the Complainant was under the coverage of an Insurance Policy obtained from the OP-1, the policy was valid for the period from 08.11.2012 to 07.11.2013, during validity of the said policy on 01.04.2013 the said vehicle met with an accident on NH-2 near Galsi Police Station, due to such accident the helper became unconscious, got injury, he was taken to the BMCH, he was referred to SSKM Hospital by the BMCH due to severe injury, for such accident the vehicle got damaged seriously, it was taken to the Galsi P.S. under its custody, the owner of the vehicle entrusted his driver to drive the vehicle who was on the steering on the date of accident, the information of accident was duly intimated to the OP-1 on 03.04.2013, such delay was expressed by the Complainant to the OP-1 stating that as he became busy with treatment of injured helper of the truck hence, the incident could not be intimated immediately after the incident, after getting intimation from the Complainant the OP-1 requested him to observe all official formalities, the claim was registered, the Complainant intimated the Galsi Police Station about the accident, though the Complainant tried to lodge G.D./F.I.R. but the concerned P.S. refused to register the same, the Complainant was intimated by the OP-1 that claim form has been issued, the Complainant was requested to submit relevant documents related with the vehicle, out of which the Complainant submitted some documents to the OP-1, the Complainant could not submit some documents as the helper and the driver fled away after the accident along with all the medical documents and respective driving license,  upon getting claim form the OP-1 deputed a surveyor for spot survey, request was made by OP-1 to the Complainant to extend co-operation to the surveyor, request was made by the Complainant to the Galsi P.S. on 29.04.2013 to return back the damaged truck for its necessary repairing, the documents as submitted by the OP-1 the same was received by it, on 20.03.2014 by issuing a letter the OP-1 intimated the Complainant that their Investigator was unable to verify the driving license from the MV Department, request was made to him to provide a valid driving license in original, it was also intimated by the OP-1 that until and unless the same is received by it the process of claim cannot be started, the Complainant could not produce the original DL to the OP-1 as NOC was issued in respect of the said DL, as per report of the NOC issued from RTO, Asansol it is evident that the license was original on the date of accident, subsequently several verbal discussion was held by and between the OPs and the Complainant, several written correspondences were also made by and between them, but to no effect, by issuing letter the Complainant requested the OPs to settle his claim, no fruitful result yielded.  Though the Complainant attempted to get particulars of the questioned DL from the local RTA office but the said office declared their helplessness of issuing particulars on the ground that as NOC was already issued due to automatic system lock in the software system if once NOC be issued, as the driver of the Complainant possessed another valid driving license of different number hence request was made by the Complainant to the OP-1 for production of the same, but the OP-1 did not allow his prayer, the claim was repudiated by the OPs, prayer was made by the Complainant to consider the same, the OPs did not pay any heed, the Complainant moved before the Insurance Ombudsman by filing a complaint, after hearing the Insurance Ombudsmen has passed an award,  the Insurance Ombudsman has confirmed the view of the insurer, hence this complaint is initiated by the Complainant.  The allegation of the Complainant is that the OPs have repudiated his legitimate insurance claim illegally and arbitrarily which they cannot.  Such action of the OPs according to the Complainant can be termed as deficient.  The Complainant has prayed for allowing the relief as sought for.  The rebuttal pleadings of the OPs is that as on the date of accident the entrusted driver of the Complainant did not hold effective and valid driving license, hence as per the terms and the conditions of the policy  the claim cannot be allowed.  According to the OPs as the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the repudiation was made rightly and as the same was duly intimated to the Complainant by issuing repudiation letter hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

            Upon considering the abovementioned facts now we are to adjudicate as to whether on the date of accident the driver of the Complainant hold a valid and effective driving license or not?  It is evident from the record that both parties have admitted that on the date of accident the entrusted driver of the Complainant hold a driving license and the copy of the same was produced to the OPs.  From Annexure-J, Page-12, it is evident that as per requirement of the OPs the DL was sent for verification at RTA by the OPs and it was found that the driver has taken NOC 6/7 months back.  It proves that the DL is genuine and it was valid at the time of accident. The Complainant also took attempt vigorously for collection of the particulars of DL No. WB 37/200141033 from the local RTA office, but the officials declared their helplessness of issuing particular as NOC has already been issued and told the Complainant that due to existence of automatic system lock in software system; particulars cannot be provided if once NOC was issued.  From the said observation it is clear to us as NOC was issued by the competent authority in respect of the questioned DL, hence the DL was valid and effective on the date of accident.  It is true that though the particulars could not be provided by the Complainant to the OPs as per requirement to process the claim, in this regard the Complainant has no liability and responsibility because due to software system particulars could not be originated as NOC was issued previously.  We do not find any mal-intention or intentional laches on the part of the Complainant in this regard.  Therefore as the driver of the Complainant possessed an effective and valid driving license on the date of accident, hence, in our view the Insurance Company cannot debarred the Complainant from getting his legitimate insurance claim due to accidental damage of his insured vehicle.

            Being aggrieved with the decision of the Insurance Company the Complainant approached before the Insurance Ombudsman by filing a complaint. The Insurance Ombudsman upon hearing both the parties has passed an award mentioning that the Complainant is not entitled to get any claim because at the relevant point of time the driver did not possess valid Driving License and hence the repudiation of claim buy the insurer is correct. In this respect the ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs National Insurance Company Ltd., decided on 26.08.2013, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 871. We have carefully perused the said judgment. It is seen by us that in the said judgment Their Lordships have placed reliance on the judgment passed in the United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru and Others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has taken the view that the Insurance Company cannot permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. It was further held that the willful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. Still further it was held that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a DL from the issuing authority at the time of employment. The employer needs to only test the capacity of the driver and if after such test, he has been appointed there cannot be any liability on the employer. The situation would be different when the employer was told that the DL of its employee is fake or false and yet the employer not taking appropriate action to get the same duly verified from the issuing authority. Their Lordships have extracted the relevant paragraph from the said judgment:

“20. When an owner is  hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving license, if the driver produces a driving license which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the license has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving license shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a license and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the license was fake, the Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the license was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the Insurance Company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.”

            Their Lordships have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NIC Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narayan Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700, wherein it was explained that ‘mere absence, fake or invalid DL or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer against the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured the insurer has to prove that the insured was faulty or negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.’

            In the relied judgment i.e. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) it has been observed by Their Lordships which runs as follows:”

8. ‘In a claim for compensation, it is certain open to the insurer under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) to take a defense that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. One such a defense is taken; the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the license possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid DL. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the DL with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation be different if at the time of insurance of a vehicle or thereafter the insurance requires the owner of the vehicle to have the license duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the license issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the license from the licensing authority. It is explained in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) that if despite such information with the owner that the license possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification then the insured will be at fault and in such circumstances the insurance company is not liable for the compensation.”

            Upon perusal of the said judgment and observation of Their Lordships mentioned therein we are of the opinion that the above-mentioned observation can be implemented in the case in hand because the fact of the relied case and the instant complaint are almost identical and similar in nature. In the case in hand the driver was entrusted by the owner of the vehicle and during that period admittedly the driver possessed a valid and effective DL. Within the four corners of the pleading of the OPs no averment is forthcoming that on the date of accident the driver did not hold valid and effective DL or the license was fake one. Moreover, in support of such contention, if any, the OPs did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove the same, rather the official document form the RTA as available, reveals that the concerned driver possessed a valid DL, but the detailed of DL cannot be produced as NOC has already been produced and hence after production of the NOC due to existence of locking system in the software the detailed of the DL could not be collected. In this respect we are unable to find out any negligence, deficiency in service on behalf of the Complainant as once NOC is issued hence there should be a valid DL otherwise, NOC could not be issued.

            The ld. Counsel for the Complainant has also relied on another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kamaleshwari Prasad Singh vs. National Insurance Company Limited, decided on 14.10.2004, reported in 2005 (2) CLT (NC) 37, wherein Their Lordships have held that the whole purpose of appointing Ombudsman is to have control over misuse of the power by statutory bodies and to see that disputes are settled. Further, Ombudsman is not discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions. This is apparent from the redressal of the Public Grievances Rules, 1998. In the said judgment it has been held by their Lordships that the decision of the Ombudsman is not binding on the Complainant and the decision of the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim is subject to adjudication by the Fora constituted under the C.P. Act. Ombudsman is to act as a counselor and mediator in matters. Upon perusal of the said judgment in our view the observation is applicable in the case in hand.

            Admittedly, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the Complainant inspite of submitting the Surveyor’s report. Such inaction on behalf of the OPs can sassily be termed as deficiency in service for which the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs. By filing this complaint obviously the Complainant had to incur some expenses and in our considered view the Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost from the OPs.

            Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is allowed on contest with cost. The OPs are directed either jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,98,824=00 to the Complainant towards the accidental damage of the insured vehicle within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the abovementioned amount shall carry interest @6% per annum for the default period. The OPs are further directed to pay either jointly or severally compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000=00 to the Complainant due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000=00 to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the Complainant is at liberty to put the entire award/decree in execution as per provisions of law.

            Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer protection Regulations, 2005.

Dictated and corrected by me.                                                               

                  (Silpi Majumder)

                         Member

                DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)                        (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                 Member                                          Member   

                                                          DCDRF, Burdwan                          DCDRF, Burdwan