Date of filing: 23.03.2009 Date of disposal: 11.01.2022
Complainant: Sri Panchanan Sarkar, S/o. Late Mukunda Sarkar, residing at Tejganj, PS. & Dist: Burdwan – 713 102.
-Vs-
Opposite Parties: 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at Kalitala, 70, B.C. Road, PS. & District: Burdwan, Burdwan – 713 101.
2. Manager, Magma Shrachi Finance Lt., (formerly known as Magma Leasing Ltd.), a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and having as Regd. Office at 24 Par4k Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Mr. Md. Muizzuddeen.
Hon’ble Member: Mr. Sailaranjan Das.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the OP No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Sourabh Dey.
Appeared for the OP No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Arindam Mukherjee.
FINAL ORDER
The case of the complainant Shri Panchanan Sarkar, in brief, is that the complainant submitted a proposal to the OP No. 2 for sanction of loan for purchasing a goods vehicle for commercial use with the intention of augmenting his income through honest means. After completion of all legal formalities, the OP No. 2 sanctioned loan of Rs. 3, 75,000=00 @interest of 13% per annum to be repaid in 35 monthly installments for the purchase of a Tata
Goods Carrier vehicle costing Rs. 5, 25,000=00. The EMI for the said loan was payable on the 1st day of every month and the EMI was to commence from 01.07.2006. With the said loan, the complainant purchased Tata LPT 1613/42 vehicle, bearing Registration No. WB 41B-2300 from the previous owner Abdul Aziz Mondal of Nababhat, Burdwan on 05.06.2006 and the said vehicle had continuing insurance coverage valid till 24.03.2007 under the OP No. 1. Thereafter the complainant dispatched a consignment of rice bran for delivery at Vishakapattanam in the state of Andhra Pradesh and on its return took up a consignment of poultry eggs for delivery at Siliguri in the state of West Bengal, but the said vehicle met with an accident at village Baligram, under P.S. Mandosa, District Srikakulam within the state of Andhra Pradesh on 28.06.2006. As a consequence the said vehicle was seized by Mandosa P.S. in connection with FIR No. 54/2006 dated 28.06.2006. The information of accident was given to both the OPs on the following day, i.e., on 29.06.2006 over telephone. As the driver died and the co-driver was seriously injured, the complainant arranged for hospitalization and treatment of the injured co-driver and the cremation of deceased driver and thereafter returned to his residence at Burdwan in mid-July 2006. Again the complainant personally informed the matter to the OP No. 2 and on the latter’s advice personally took up the matters with the OP No. 1. Despite successive assurances, the OP No. 1 did not initiate any step for examining the said vehicle for ascertaining extent of damage sustained by it though the complainant reported it to Senior Divisional Manager of the OP No. 1 by letter dated 07.10.2006. The fact of accident was also reported to the RTO, Burdwan on 16.10.2006 in writing by the complainant and a copy thereof was also forwarded to the OP No. 2 on the same day.
Further case of the complainant is that as a consequence of the said accident the front portion of the vehicle including the driver’s cabin was severely damaged. The radiator, alternator, head lamps, engine, battery and front portion of the chassis were all severely damaged. While the vehicle was under police custody the following valuable parts of the said vehicle were found missing, presumably having been stolen from the vehicle in collusion and connivance of Mandosa P.S.: (i) seven pieces new tyres, (ii) seven pieces wheel rims, (iii) four pieces brake drums, (iv) two pieces axles, (v) one diesel tank, (vi) one Exide auto battery, (vii) radiator and (viii) total tool kit with extra fittings. The complainant informed the fact of the aforesaid theft to the I.C., Mandosa P.S. under his letter sent by registered post with A/D dated 22.10.2006 with request investigating the same and take appropriate action for recovery of the said stolen parts of the vehicle and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the OP No. 1. Despite repeated request and reminders to the OP No. 1 by letter dated 11.11.2006, 01.08.2007, 15.11.2007 & 15.05.2008, no step was taken nor any action initiated by the OP No. 1 either in the matter of ascertaining the quantum of damages of the vehicle or for payment of adequate compensation as per law.
Further case of the complainant is that the inaction by the OP No. 1 is completely whimsical, arbitrary and illegal and no steps have been taken by the OP No. 1 for investigating the vehicle, assessing the loss and servicing the insurance policy by releasing full and adequate compensation to the complainant. As a consequence the complainant has been prevented from recovering the impugned vehicle and repairs the same for making the same operational and/or repaying the loan to the OP No. 2 despite investing of more than Rs. 1, 70,000=00 by him. The complainant was compelled to issue a legal notice dated 22.08.2008 to the OP No. 1 through his Ld. Advocate under registered post with A/D. In reply, the OP No. 1 requested that the complainant should forthwith submit the claim form to enable them to initiate action for processing the application for compensation, although, a claim for releasing insurance compensation was lodged by the complainant much earlier before the OP No. 1 in date to its request. The complainant once again attempted to lodge a formal request for a claim application form at the office of the OP No. 1 on 20.10.2008. Strangely the OP No. 1 refused to accept the said formal request or to deliver such form to the complainant. In this situation the complainant was compelled to record the fact of such refusal in his letter dated 20.11.2008 to forward a copy thereof to the OP No. 2. As there was no further response from the OP No. 1, the complainant was compelled to issue a final legal notice through his Ld. Advocate on 21.11.2008 calling upon the OP No. 1 to reimburse the various losses suffered along with interest for inordinate delay in realizing the same which was received on 24.11.2008. The OP No. 1 has continued to remain silent.
Further case of the complainant is that the complainant informed the matter to the OP No. 2 duly by letter dated 11.10.2006 and also sent all the copies of all his representations to the OP No. 1 in the hopes and expectations that the OP No. 2 would catalyse the OP No. 1 in the fast and immediate action. However, the OP No. 2 also was silent over the matter and after lapse of almost 21 months recalled the loan advance for purchase of the impugned vehicle by letter dated 15.11.2007. Though the complainant explained his difficulty to repay the loan, yet the OP No. 2 terminated the loan agreement by letter dated 21.02.2008 and asked for return of the asset together with a sum of Rs. 6, 61,418=00. Thereafter, the OP No. 2 also initiated a proceeding u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Ld. CMM, Calcutta being M.P. Case No. C/11544 of 2007 dated 22.09.2007 compelling the complainant to obtain bail and participate in the said proceeding for contesting the false claims raised therein. To harass the complainant the OP No. 2 thereafter
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the complainant has no cause of action for the case and that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and that the complaint is totally misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter in dispute under the C. P. Act, 1986 and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party and non-joinder of necessary party and that the complaint is barred by law of limitation and liable to be dismissed.
The specific case of the OP No. 1 – New India Assurance Company Limited is that after receiving the information on 12.10.2006 regarding alleged accident of the vehicle in question on 28.06.2006 under Mandosa Police Station, District Sikakulam, Andhra Pradesh from the complainant. The Srikakulam Divisional Office of this OP arranged spot survey by deputing an independent Surveyor, Namely, O. Sambasiva Rao and he submitted survey report on 06.10.2006 accordingly. Thereafter this OP No. 1 vide its letter dated 31.10.2006 and 15.11.2006 requested the complainant to submit the following documents and papers at an early date so that this OP may depute a Surveyor for assessing loss and Para 14 of the W/V mentioned the said documents. Inspite of aforesaid letters the complainant did not submit the loss estimate for settlement of the alleged claim of the complainant till date. The original loss estimate is very much required by this OP to appoint a Surveyor of particular category, i.e., A, B or C which actually depends on the said loss estimate as per IRDA rule. Though the complainant in his letter dated 21.12.2006 loss of estimate of a repair is being enclosed but actually the said loss estimate has not been submitted along with the said letter of the complainant. Again on 02.01.2007 this OP requested the complainant to submit the loss estimate and vehicular paper in original for their verification, so they might depute Surveyor for assessing the loss on the basis of such loss estimate and vehicular papers but the complainant did not submit the said loss estimate and vehicular papers. After that the OP – Insurance Company was not in a position to assess the actual loss by the help of an independent Surveyor but to close the claim file and said fact of closing the claim file as no claim has been duly intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 11.04.2007. For the above reason it is evident that there was no deficiency in service in dealing with the own damaged repair claim lodged by the complainant. After non-submission of the original loss estimate and original vehicular papers, this OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as actual loss has not been done by the independent Surveyor. There was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 further submitted that he is entitled to get cost of Rs. 10,000=00 from the complainant as per provisions of the C. P. Act, 1986. Upon this background the OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The specific case of the OP No. 2 is that the complainant on May 2006 requested this OP for a loan of Rs. 3, 75,000=00 and thereafter on May 31, 2006 an agreement of loan on hypothecation was executed by and between the complainant and the OP No. 2. The said agreement of loan cum hypothecation inter alia contains an arbitration clause whereby and where under all disputes and/or differences arising out of and in connection with the said agreement was agreed to refer to the Arbitration as per provisions of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. This OP in Para 15 of the W/V pointed out the arbitration clause in brief. The OP No. 2 stated that after scrutinizing the loan proposal submitted by the complainant and ascertaining that all parameters for obtaining a vehicle for loan had been satisfied and sanctioned loan of Rs. 3, 75,000=00 against the total cost of the vehicle Rs. 5, 25,000=00 @ interest 13% per annum to be repaid in 35 monthly instalments payable of first of every month commencing from 01.07.2006 and the vehicle in question had an continuing insurance cover valid till 24.02.2007 from the OP No. 1. The complainant failed or neglected to pay any single EMI despite reminders and notice and lapses of more than 20 months this OP had no option but to terminate the loan agreement by letter dated 21.02.2008 prior thereof, the OP No. 2 presented the blank cheques given by the complainant by means of security against non-payment of EMIs to their defaulters for collecting but the said cheques were returned due to necessary fund in the account on which they are drawn, this OP initiated proceeding u/S. 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant before the Ld. M.M., Calcutta being N.P. Case No. C/11544 of 2007 and thereafter in order to recovering the large amount of outstanding this OP initiated proceeding under the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 by appointing a sole arbitrator on the consent of the complainant that the complainant did not appear in both the said proceeding. No step has been taken by the OP which are contrary to law against the complainant. This OP did not do anything which is amounting to deficiency in service. Upon this background this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
On 29.12.2009 the complainant adduced evidence-on-affidavit and the case was fixed for argument and 27.07.2011 the order was passed in Order No. 23, dated 27.07.2011 with a direction to the OP No. 1 that OP No. 1 is at liberty to choose Surveyor either from A, B & C category as per IRDA Rules and assessing the loss. Again on 14.11.2011 another order No. 28, dated 14.11.2011 was passed and the prayer for review or modification of impugned judgement by OP No. 1 was not maintainable and rejected and the OP No. 1 might assess the loss of the damaged vehicle in reference to the report of the Surveyor as appointed by its Srikakulam Divisional Office as admitted in the written version and to comply the judgement dated 27.07.2011 without any further delay, otherwise, the law would take its own course. The OP No. 2 did not participate in the said proceeding. In the meantime on 22.12.2011 an Execution Case was started by the complainant before the Forum in respect of execution of order No. 23, dated 27.07.2011 and on 24.04.2013 the Execution Case was allowed (Order No. 15, dt. 24.04.2013) against the OP. Against the said order of the Execution Case, the OP No. 1 went on appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB, Kolkata wherein the Hon’ble SCDRC passed an order in First Appeal No. FA/617/2013 on 08.08.2017. The Hon’ble SCDRC gave an order that instant impugned order appeared to have been passed, after the aforesaid revision petition was dismissed by this Commission in the EA/20/2011, prima facie irregularly filed, since the complaint case was not decided. There was, therefore no Dhr and no Jdr although there are reference of Dhr and Jdr in the instant impugned order. The impugned order since bereft of any legal base we shrink from passing any order on the instant occasion. The Hon’ble SCDRC, WB has ordered that the case remanded to the Ld. Forum with a direction to heard the case on merit on due observance of legal formalities and pass necessary order assigning reasons. Accordingly the case was fixed for appearance of the parties and hearing on 06.11.2017 and subsequently on 05.03.2018 the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit. No questionnaire was filed by the OP in respect of the evidence of the complainant submitted on 05.03.2018. The OP also gave evidence of Surveyor Sri Aloke Kumar Chandra on affidavit and the complainant files questionnaire on 28.02.2019 against it and the Surveyor Mr. Aloke Kr. Chandra on behalf of OP No. 1 submitted reply on 03.07.2019. The OP No.1 has adduced evidence treating the W/V supported by affidavit in this case and the complainant was not willing to file any questionnaire. The complainant and the OP No. 1 have filed written argument separately. Both the parties filed Xerox copies of documents. The OP No. 1 also filed Surveyor’s report and the Surveyor Mr. Aloke Kr. Chandra.
In view of the order of Hon’ble SCDRC, Kolkata in First Appeal No. FA/617/201 this case is being disposed of on merit on due observance of legal formalities.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Ld. Advocate for the complaint and Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 advanced their argument in full in this case but the OP No. 2 did not participate in this case during the proceeding of taking evidence and hearing of arguments.
At the time of hearing of arguments both the ld. Advocates of both sides did not press that the complainant has no cause of action for the case and
that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and that the complaint is totally misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and that this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain to adjudicate the dispute and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party and non-joinder of necessary party and that the complaint is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, we are of opinion that those points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Admittedly, the vehicle being No. WB41B-2300 was insured under the OP No. 1-Insurance Company and the value of the said vehicle at that time was Rs. 5, 25,000=00 as there are sufficient materials in this regard.
On perusal of the evidence on record, the complaint, the written version and written argument of both sides we find that the complainant has supported his case by way of evidence on affidavit and the OP No. 1 has supported his case by his evidence which has been reflected in the written version supported by an affidavit and treating the same as evidence. Written argument of both sides also disclosed the same facts, i.e., the written argument of the complainant supported his case as mentioned in the complaint and written argument of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 supported their cases mentioned in their written version. In the evidence, the complainant has denied the material in the written version of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their evidence as well as in their written argument. In the same way, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their written version as well as their written arguments has denied the material allegation brought forth by the complainant in his written complaint. The evidence of the complainant disclosed that the fact of theft of the vehicle after accident was intimated to the Mandosa P.S., District: Srikakulam within Andhra Pradesh on 28.06.2006 and the said information was also given to both the OPs by the complainant on 29.06.2006 over telephone and the fact of the accident was also communicated in writing to the R.T.O., Burdwan on 16.10.2006 and a copy thereof was also forwarded to the OP No. 2 on the same date. The evidence of the complainant also disclosed that the theft enquiry of the vehicle could not be done because some valuable parts were stolen from Mandosa P.S. So it was quite impossible for the complainant to get the vehicle in question repaired and submit a report as to estimate loss to the OP No. 1. On the other hand, evidence of the OP No. 1 disclosed that, as the complainant did not submit the estimated loss or repairing cost, the OP NO. 1 cannot engage Surveyor to assess the loss of estimate as per IRDA Rules. The OP No. 1 also stated in his evidence that the complainant did not submit the loss of estimate and vehicular papers in original for their verification. But the Ld. Advocate for the complainant during the course of advancing his argument pointed out the Para No. 14 of the written version submitted by the OP No. 1 that the OP No. 1 though admitted that it received information on 12.10.2006 regarding alleged accident of vehicle in question yet it, i.e., OP No. 1 – Insurance Company arranged spot survey by deputing an independent Surveyor, namely, O. Sambasiva Rao and he submitted survey report on 06.10.2006. The alleged Surveyor report submitted by Surveyor Mr. O. Sambasiva Rao appointed by OP No. 1 has not been submitted by the OP No. 1 in this case. The complainant raised question how it is possible to say that after receiving the information on 12.10.2006, the Surveyor submitted the report on 06.10.2006. In this way the complainant doubted the actual survey done by the OP No. 1. On the other hand, it is admitted that the fact of theft was happened at Mandosa P.S. and most of the valuable parts of the vehicle was stolen away during police custody of the vehicle in question and the complainant was unable to submit the same, i.e, the loss of estimate by repairing of the vehicle in question due to most of the valuable parts of the vehicle was stolen away. Considering the submissions of both the parties and evidence on record it can be said that the crucial point for consideration of the case as to the present situation of this case after closing the evidence of both sides and materials on record, District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum directed by order No. 23, dated 27.07.2011 to the OP No. 1 to choose Surveyor either from A or B or C category as per IRDA Rule for assessing the loss and to submit the report. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also directed by order No. 28, dated 14.11.2011 to the OP No. 1 that OP No. 1 may assess the loss of the damaged vehicle in reference to the report of the Surveyor as appointed by its Srikakulam Divisional Office as admitted in the written version. Thereafter, in view of the order of the Commission one Mr. Aloke Kr. Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Approved Valuer appointed by the OP No. 1 submitted his probable assessment of loss in accident of the vehicle in question on 11.03.2013 before this Commission and the said report discloses total probable loss was Rs. 1, 50,529=00. The complainant has filed questionnaires against the said Surveyor report dated 27.02.2013 regarding probable assessment of loss to the accident of the vehicle in question and the complainant suggested that without physical verification, viewing only the photographs, spot survey report and applying technical judgement, loss suffered by owner of the vehicle due to accident on 28.06.2006 cannot be assessed after more than six years on 27.02.2013. Mr. Aloke Kr. Chandra replied that he worked out probable assessment of loss as on had been accident viewing photographs of accident vehicle and consultation with spot survey report, the assessment of loss as per as report Ref. No. AC/8366/2013, dated 27.02.2013 was justified, reasonable, and past experience in survey profession job since last 37 years were applied to arrive in to the assessment. It is a fact that on physical verification of the vehicle in question the estimate of loss was not prepared as because the most of the parts were stolen away during police custody of the vehicle. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that there is no provision in the Insurance Act that the probable loss may be done instead of actual loss. Ld. Advocate for the OP has argued that as the most of the parts of the vehicle were stolen away the probable loss was prepared on virtual process by viewing photographs of accident vehicle and consultation with the sport survey report and he pointed out the provision of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. Ld. Advocate for the complainant then argued that the Surveyor’s report, i.e., the report submitted by Mr. Chandra is not sacrosanct and not conclusive. In support of his claim he cited the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2002 and Civil Appeal No. 9050 of 2018. In Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2002, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “although the assessment of loss by the approved Surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but Surveyor’s report is not the last and final word – it is not the sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive – approved Surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insurer but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9050 of 2018 also held that “Surveyor’s report was not so sacrosanct as to be incapable of being departed from – Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject Surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy, just as Civil Court can do – once it is found that no inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance of duties and responsibilities of Surveyor, in manner prescribed by Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to go further would stop”. Under the above situation the amount of insurance claim in this case is in a fix – as to whether the probable loss of estimate can be accepted or actual loss of estimate can be accepted. There is no report preparing actual loss of estimate. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Surveyor’s report is not sacrosanct and Surveyor’s report not so sacrosanct as to be incapable of being departed from and Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject Surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy just as Civil Court can do. Therefore, we are of the view that this Commission is being dealt with the allegation of deficiency in service of the complainant. From the evidence of both sides and materials on record it can be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 in this case.
The allegation that the OP No. 2 lodged a complaint u/S. 138 of N.I. Act before the Court of CMM, Calcutta and the OP No. 2 also initiated a proceeding under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 for recovering of loan amount from the complainant but no final decision is forthcoming in this case either from the complainant or from the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 in this regard. Therefore, we are not in a position to go through the matters for discussion elaborately.
Admittedly, the vehicle in question was covered by insurance policy including the value of the vehicle and most of the valuable parts of which were stolen away during the period of police custody of the alleged vehicle. Immediate after accident the investigation by Surveyor was not done by the Insurance Company-OP No. 1 as it appears from the evidence of both sides. Long after accident, the survey was done and probable loss of estimate was done virtually, i.e., on seeing the photographs of vehicle and as such probable loss of estimate was prepared by one Aloke Kumar Chandra who gave evidence eon affidavit and replies to the questionnaires of the complainant after stolen away of the most valuable parts of the alleged vehicle. There is no provision of preparing probable loss of estimate in the Insurance Act. Those facts normally indicated that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 as there was negligence on the part of OP No. 1 for which the complainant being consumer suffered loss and injury. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court the report of probable loss is not sacrosanct. Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specify the final order or orders that may be passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after taking into consideration, the contentions of both the parties and the evidence lodged by them. Section 14 of the C. P. Act, 1986 empowers the Forum to grant only those reliefs which are enumerated in Section 14(1) but it can grant reliefs not to pray for by the complainant provided the same are justified on merits and are at the same time covers by sub-Section 1 of Section 14. It is pertinent to note that the Forum may award compensation only if two conditions are satisfy; (i) the consumer must have suffered loss or injury and (ii) the loss or injury must have been caused due to the negligence of the OP. More so, by Section 14 (1) (d) proviso the Forum Shall have power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit. It is settled law that when policy does not indicate that in case of total loss of vehicle merely value will be assessed, the owner is entitled to the same for which the vehicle was insured. In the instant case by the foregoing discussions and facts and circumstances and the materials on record it appears that the complainant has proved the case that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 and the complainant has fulfilled the above-mentioned condition Nos. 1 & 2 in this case.
Considering the materials on record and the discussion made above we are of opinion that it would be proper and justified that the prayer of reimbursement of the full value of the vehicle insured valued at Rs. 5,25,000=00 should be allowed specially when the OP No. 1 has failed to submit the actual loss of estimate regarding almost all the valuable parts of the alleged vehicle in question. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment for which he is entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000=00 only
As a result, the case succeeds. Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that this case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 – New India Assurance Company Limited and against the OP No. 2 – Magma Shrachi Finance Limited. The complainant is entitled to get reimbursement of the full value of the vehicle insured valued at Rs. 5,25,000=00 (Rs. Five lakh twenty five thousand) only and Rs. 1,00,000=00 (Rs. One lakh) only as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 10,000=00 (Rs. Ten thousand) only as litigation cost.
OP No. 1 is directed to pay the said amount to the complainant by A/c. payee cheque within one month (30 days) from the date of order of this case, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @15% (fifteen per cent) per annum till realization.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Md. Muizzuddeen)
President
(Md. Muizzuddeen) D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
(Sailananjan Das)
Member D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
