Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.8.2011 , rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs(now appellants) to pay Rs.37,884/- jointly and severally to the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim. The OPs were also burdened with a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- alongwith Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with by the OPs, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they were jointly & severally held liable to pay interest @18% p.a. on the payable claim amount alongwith compensation and the costs of litigation. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing Chassis No.12079 and Engine No.35113, with the OPs, for the period from 22.1.2010 to 21.1.2011, on payment of Rs.23075/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 08.03.2010. Intimation, in this regard, was given to OP No.1. On the directions of OP Nos.1 & 2, the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of OP No.3. A Surveyor/Loss Assessor was appointed and assessment of loss/damage to the vehicle was made. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.49,400/-, on account of repair of the vehicle. It was stated that the vehicle being new, was allotted temporary Registration No. CH-23(T)6573. It was further stated that the complainant had applied for the permanent registration number of the said vehicle, after the expiry of 30 days, for which period, the temporary registration certificate was effective. It was further stated that when the claim was submitted, the same was repudiated, on the ground, that the vehicle had not been got registered with the Registering Authority, within the prescribed period, after the expiry of temporary registration certificate. It was further stated that the repudiation was illegal and invalid. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed by him. 3. OP NOs.1 & 2, in their written reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was, however, stated that after the expiry of 30 days, from the date of allotment of temporary registration number, the complainant did not get it registered with the Registering Authority and, as such, at the time of accident, the vehicle was not registered with any Registering Authority. It was further stated that, thus, the complainant violated the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The accident was admitted. It was stated that Sh.Survinder Singh, was appointed as Surveyor by the OPs, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.37,884/- ,after taking into consideration, the aspect of depreciation. It was further stated that the value of salvage was also deducted from the total loss, which was assessed at Rs.1000/-. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed, by the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The only submission, which was advanced, by the Counsel for the appellants/OPs, was to the effect, that the District Forum fell into a grave error in awarding interest and compensation simultaneously. He further submitted that both interest and the compensation, could not be granted, at the same time, as it would amount to enriching the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, to this extent, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that, both interest and the compensation, could be granted by the District Forum, as they fall in different categories . He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The words ‘interest’ and ‘compensation’ are sometimes used interchangeably and, on other occasions, they have distinct connotation. ‘Interest’ in general terms, is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. In its narrow sense, ‘interest’ is understood to mean the amount, which one has contracted to pay for use of borrowed money. In whatever category ‘interest’, in a particular case, may be put, it is a consideration, paid either for the use of money, or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and, thus, it is a charge for the use or forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation, allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by custom or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or for the delay, in paying money, after it has become payable. In the instant case, the accident took place on 8.3.2010. Immediately thereafter, the complainant informed the Insurance Company with regard to the accident and, on their instructions, got the vehicle repaired. The claim was submitted, but the same was not settled. Even, a notice was given, by the complainant, but to no avail. Left with no option, the complainant had to file a complaint on 10.11.2010 i.e. after about 8 months of the accident. Had the amount, which was legally due to the complainant, on account of the claim, filed by him, as per report of the surveyor, paid to him, immediately after the accident or within reasonable time, he would have utilized the same, or invested the same, in some bank, as a result whereof, he would have earned interest thereon. The amount, which was legally due to the complainant, was improperly withheld by the OPs, for a long time, as a result whereof, the complainant was deprived of the same and, thus, he suffered a financial loss. For financial loss, which the complainant incurred, the District Forum was right in granting interest @ 9% p.a., which could be said to be just,fair and reasonable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. According to Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant. The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means, compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Consumer Foras, to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer, which in law is, otherwise, the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our opinion, enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Consumer Fora to grant compensation. The Commission or the Forum, in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. In this case, immediately after the vehicle, was purchased by the complainant, it met with an accident. On the instructions of the OPs, he had to pay repair charges. He made a number of requests, to the OPs, to settle his claim, but to no avail. Even repeated visits of the complainant to the office of the OPs, did not evoke any response. The letters written by him, to the OPs were also not responded to. The complainant had to virtually run from pillar to post, for the settlement of his claim, but to no effect. The complainant had to undergo immense physical harassment, and mental agony, on account of non-settlement of his claim, and he was also forced to resort to litigation. The District Forum, was, thus, right in awarding compensation, for the immense physical harassment, and mental agony, undergone by the complainant, on account of the act and conduct of the OPs. In Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana & Others, 1(2009)CPJ25(SC) , the Apex Court while upholding the order of the Fora below, regarding the refund of amount with interest @ 12% p.a., as also compensation of Rs.20,000/-, to each of the complainants, further directed the OPs, to pay additional compensation of Rs.one lac to each of them. In Paramvir Singh Vs P.H.Houses Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.2779 of 2010 decided on 11.5.2011 the National Commission, in similar circumstances, upheld the grant of interest, on the refund of amount, as also granted compensation, to the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that compensation could not be awarded simultaneously with interest, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on Shobika Attire Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.IV(2006)CPJ 3(SC) to support his contention, that when the interest had been granted, no compensation for mental agony and harassment could be awarded. The perusal of the facts of the aforesaid case, clearly goes to show, that the interpretation of Section 14(d) of the Act, did not fall for consideration therein. No invariable principle of law, was laid down, in Shobika Attire’s case (supra) that, in every case, interest and compensation could not be granted together. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing, in that case, the Apex Court, held that since the complainant had been granted the reimbursement of amount of Rs.1,02,16,173/- alongwith interest, he was not entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellants, from the aforesaid case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No other argument, was advanced, by the Counsel for the parties. 14. The order, rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission . 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
