Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/2036

KU.ANUSHRI MALVIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE DIGITAL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MS.ANITA SINGH

12 Mar 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.2036 / 2017.

 

Ku. Anushree Malviya,

Minor through Guardian

Aneeta Malviya,

Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.).                                            …. APPELLANT.

 

 

                        Versus

 

Reliance Digital Ltd. & Anr.                                                            …. RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

 

12.3.2020                  Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                    None for the respondent no.1.

                                    Shri Pankaj Waghmode, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

                                    Heard.

                        2.         This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.9.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, No.1, Bhopal (for short the “Forum”) in CC No.909/2016 whereby the Forum has directed the respondent no.2 to decide the claim of the appellant / complainant within two months failing

 

 

• 2 -

 

                        which the respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,688/- to the appellant / complainant.

                        3.         Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 made a categorical statement which we record to the effect that in terms of the order of the Forum the amount of Rs.6,688/- has been deposited by the respondent no.2 – National Insurance Company Ltd. towards repair charges in execution case filed at the instance of the appellant / complainant.

                        4.         Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Forum though recorded a finding that the respondent no.2 has committed deficiency in service in not deciding the claim within the reasonable time has erred in not awarding any compensation towards the physical and mental agony and the cost of the litigation.

                        5.         Having gone through the impugned order we find the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to be of merit.  The Forum in our considered view ought to have awarded compensation for deficiency in service and litigation cost.

                        6.         We find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the alleged claim was submitted by the appellant on the address which was not in existence and as such there was no fault of the respondent no.2 as we find against the impugned order no appeal has been filed by the

 

• 3 -

 

respondent no.2 and after passing of the impugned order, the order has been complied with in the execution proceedings on receiving the notice of the execution case on the same address.  In the circumstances, having complied with the order in the execution proceedings the respondent no.2’s contention that notice was not served on it, cannot be accepted. 

7.         We are of the view that for the delay which has been caused in not deciding the claim by the respondent no.2 the appellant is entitled to be compensated for the deficiency in service.  We accordingly order that the appellant be paid Rs.3000/- by the respondent no.2 towards mental and physical agony.  In addition the cost of litigation to the extent of Rs.2000/- is also awarded.  Thus, in all Rs.5000/- in addition to the amount what has been deposited by the respondent no.2, shall be paid by the respondent no.2 to the appellant within two months failing which it will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till payment. 

8.         The amount which has already been deposited by the respondent no.2 in the Forum shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant / complainant.       

                        9.         The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

 

 

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)         (S.S. Bansal)            (Prabhat Parashar)      

           ^{PRESIDENT                                          MEMBER                              MEMBER}   

 

Phadke