West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/47/2015

Sandip Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Monika Biswas - Opp.Party(s)

Ashirbad Haldar

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case Nos.47/2015, 48/2015, 49/2015 & 50/2015.

 

             Sandip Singh, S/o Late Tejpal Singh, Resident of Nimpura (Dewanmaro), P.O.-Nimpura,

             P.S.-Kharagpur(T), District - Paschim Medinipur. …………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Smt. Monika Biswas, proprietor of USHA GAS AGENCY, SP-65, Gole Bazar, Bhandari Chawk, P.P.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Haldia Divisional office, HDA Building, P.O.-Durgachak, Dist-Purba Medinipur
3. The Area Manager (M.D.), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Red Cross Road, City Center, P.O.-Durgapur, Dist-Burdwan
4. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office no.17, Canada Building, 226, Dr.D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Ashirbad Haldar , Advocate.

              For the O.P. : Mr. Surajit Dutta, Mr. Akshay Kumar Khamrui and Mr.Rudranil Mitra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -31/07/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –All the above four complaint cases are taken up for analogous judgement in as much as all those four cases were heard by way of analogous trial vide order no.11 dated 04/12/2015 passed in complaint case no.47/2015 as because all the four cases arose out of the self-same occurrence and the parties are the same.  Of course, the victims of those four cases are different persons.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Contd…………….P/2                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                 ( 2 )

                         Complainant Sandip Singh has filed those four consumer complains u/s 12 of the C.P. Act thereby alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1&3.

                       The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

                         The complainant is a consumer of domestic gas for cooking supplied by the O.P. no.3 through O.P. no.1 being consumer no.36552, LPG ID no.7500000090216889 and subscription voucher no.8800 dated 23.11.2011.  O.P. no.1 is the agent of O.P. no.3 for supply of gas to the consumers and is expected to provide service in supplying the gas cylinders, installing them at the place of the consumer through their own mechanic and provide other ancillary services.  O.P. no.2 is the insurance company of the O.P. no.1 vide policy no.311901/48/2015/1256 and the period of insurance was from 21.09.2014 to mid-night of 20.09.2015 and by this policy, the customers of the said distributor are also insured.  O.P. no.3 is the principal supplier of gas cylinder and the manufacture of gas and expected to provide gas cylinders in perfect condition free from any defects so as to avoid danger to the life of the consumers of the gas.  By way of amendment vide order dated 01.09.2015, O.P. no.4, who is the insurance company of the O.P. no.3 was added as O.P. no.4.  On 04.11.2014, O.P. no.1 delivered a LPG cylinder in the house of the complainant as per prior booking by the complainant.  Subsequently on 13.11.2014, the complainant after connecting the cylinder, tried to light the gas oven but the gas did not burn and when the complainant found that the cylinder was not functioning, he immediately informed the matter to the O.P. no.1 over phone at about 9 a.m. and lodged a complaint regarding the defect of said cylinder.  After receiving the complain, O.P. no.1 sent a person name Debashis Majumder, a mechanic of the O.P. no.1 at around 11 a.m. to rectify the defect of the said cylinder to the house of the complainant.  Said Debashis Majumder connected the said cylinder with the oven and tried to light the gas burner but the gas did not burn.  He therefore pressed the valve from top of the cylinder with a screwdriver.  There upon gas immediately started oozing out from the valve of the cylinder and the mechanic connected the regulator with the cylinder.  As soon as the mechanic lighted the gas oven, the gas that oozed out, got lighted causing serious burn injuries to the mechanic Decbasis Majumder, Tejpal Singh and Smt. Ashima Kaur, the parents of the complainant, Kapil Singh and Akrit Singh, the brother and minor son respectively of the complainant.  The complainant then immediately rushed to Kharagpur Sub-Divisional hospital with the injured persons and therefrom they were referred to Medinipur Medical College & Hospital.  Thereafter the complainant took his injured father, mother, brother and minor son to Kasba Revival Nursing Home for better treatment.  He also informed the said matter to the O.P. no.1.  His parents, brother and mechanic Debasis Majumder succumbed to the injury and they died

                                                                                                                                               Contd…………….P/3

                                                           

                                                                                                     ( 3 )

 and the minor son of the complainant somehow survived but his treatment is still going on.

                      In complaint case no.47/2015, the complainant has stated that his father Tejpal Singh, who died due to such burn injury, was a businessman of 66 years of old and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from his such business and he died on 21.11.2014 leaving behind the complainant as sole surviving legal heir and representative  and in the said case, the complainant has prayed for an award of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost against the O.Ps.

                     In the petition of complaint case no.48/2015, it is stated that the deceased brother named Kapil Singh of the complainant was a businessman and he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and he was aged about 30 years on the date of his death on 20.11.2014 and he left the complainant as his only surviving legal heir as he was unmarried and his parents also died due to such occurrence.  In the said case, the complainant has claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation against the O.Ps jointly as well as severally.

                   In complaint case no.49/2015, the complaint has stated that his mother Mrs. Asima Kaur, who died due to such burn injury, was 55 years of old and she was a house wife and she used to earn Rs.5000/- per month by doing tuition and she died on 20.11.2014 leaving behind the complainant as her sole surviving legal heir.  In the said case, complainant has claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and for other reliefs against the O.Ps.

                  In complaint case no.50/2015, the complainant has stated that his minor son Akrit Singh sustained 60% burn injury on his person due to such accident and for his treatment, the complainant has already spent Rs.15,00,000/- and for his further treatment, the complainant requires Rs.5,00,000/- more.  It is stated that Akrit Singh is now aged about 7 years and for such accident, he has become disabled and has stopped going to school and he will have to suffer his whole life both physically and mentally.  The complainant therefore has claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the O.Ps.

                 Out of the four O.Ps., O.P. nos, 1, 2 & 3 have contested these cases by filing separate written versions.  O.P. no.4, who was added subsequently by way of amendment, duly received notice of these cases but inspite of service of notice, O.P. no.4 did not appear to contest for which all the four cases were ordered to be heard ex-parte against O.P. no.4 vide order no.10 dated 05.11.2015, passed in all the four aforesaid complaint cases.

                 In all the cases, the complainant has stated in his petition of complaint that before filing of these cases, he sent a lawyer’s notice dated 02.03.2015 through his Advocate Mr. Asirbad Halder claiming compensation against the O.Ps and in reply, only

                                                                                                                                                         Contd…………….P/4

                                                           

                                                                                                  ( 4 )

 O.P. no.2 by a letter dated 17.03.2015 informed that as per policy limit they are liable to pay only Rs.10,00,000/- for one accident and further advised to lodge claim against Usha Gas Agency i.e. O.P. no.1.

                      Denying her liability in the written version, O.P. no.1 Smt. Manika Biswas, the proprietor of Usha Gas Agency, has stated that O.P. no.1 is the agent of O.P. no.3- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for supply of  gas to the consumers and is expected to provide service in supplying the gas cylinders, installing them at the place of consumers through their own mechanic and provide other ancillary services. It is contended that as per application of the complainant for a double cylinder connection, O.P. no.1 provided him with the said connection on 17.04.1981.  On 04.11.2014, O.P. no.1 supplied a gas cylinder to the complainant and the supply man of the O.P. no.1 installed the said cylinder in the kitchen of the complainant.  The complainant was thereafter the custodian of the said cylinder from 04.11.2014 till the alleged the date of accident on 13.11.2014.  In his FIR, the complainant has stated that he was not present when the alleged incident took place and therefore he has no personal knowledge.  Sri Debasis Majumder, who attended the call of complainant on the alleged date, is a trained mechanic of O.P. no.1 and is adequately qualified and trained to handle gas cylinder and other allied equipments.  Immediately after occurrence, officers/qualified engineers of the O.P. no.3 visited the place of occurrence, took photographs and found that there were other gas cylinders in the kitchen like H.P. made which is against the norms of regulating use of LPG by the consumers.  During such inspection, no defect was detected in the said cylinder and regulator.  It is stated that from plain reading of the petition of complaint, it will be found that no prima facie case of negligence has been made out against O.P. no.1.  It is stated that since Debasis Majumder, the trained mechanic of O.P. no.1, died in the said accident, so under no stretch of imagination, it can be held that a person trained shall voluntarily cause any negligence to put his life in the peril.  It is also stated that the complainant has failed to make out a case of negligence and defective cylinder and the accident is purely accidental in nature for which the O.P. no.1 is no way responsible.  O.P. no.1 therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                       In the written version, O.P. no.2-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has admitted that O.P. no.3 in the principal supplier of gas cylinder and the manufacture of gas and expected to provide gas cylinder in perfect condition.  It is admitted by the O.P. no.2 that they are the insurance company of the O.P. no.1.  It is stated that the O.P. no.3 remains liable for supply of such defective gas cylinder which is the cause of accident and for which O.P. no.1 cannot be held responsible in any way.  The alleged insurance policy

                                                                                                                                                                Contd…………….P/5

                                                           

                                                                                               ( 5 )

 was a contract between the O.P. no.1 and this O.P. no.2 and under said insurance policy, public liability relates to public involvement in LPG accident for fault of the O.P. no.1 and not relating to LPG customer and limit of liability in that case towards public is Rs.10,00,000/- for one accident and in total Rs.40,00,000/- in one year.  It is claimed by the O.P. no.2 that O.P. no.3 is absolutely liable for supply of such faulty and defective cylinder to the O.P. no.1 and there was no negligence or fault on the part of O.P. no.1 and as such neither the O.P. no.1 nor the O.P. no.2 is liable to pay any compensation and the amount of compensation, if allowed, is to be paid by O.P. no.3 for whose fault the accident took place.

                      In their written version, it is stated by the O.P. no.3 that the field officer of the O.P. no.3 visited the place of occurrence on 14.11.2014 alongwith their representatives of O.P. no.1and on enquiry it was gathered that while attending leakage complaint with the spark of gas lighter, incident occurred.  It is stated that the cylinder supplied by O.P. no.1 was not defective.  Denying the allegation of deficiency in service and supply of defective cylinder, it is stated that it is the practice of O.P. no.3 that before delivery of cylinder to the distributors, the cylinders are thoroughly checked and inspected at various stages before delivery to the distributors and the distributor after receiving the cylinders stores in their godown and thereafter supply to the consumers after pre-delivery check.  It is further stated that in terms of clause 17 of the distributorship agreement made between O.P. no.1 & O.P. no.3, the distributor shall act and shall always be deemed to have acted as a principal and not as an agent of the O.P. no.3 and O.P. no.3 shall not be in any way liable for any act or omission on the part of the distributor, his servant, agent and workman in regard to such installation, sale etc.  It is claimed that O.P. no.3 is no way connected with the alleged accident.  O.P. no.3 therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                      To prove his case, the complainant Sandip Singh has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 11/1 series respectively.  Complainant has also examined another witness namely Seema Kaur, his wife, as PW-2 by tendering a written examination-in-chief.

                      On the other hand, O.P. no.1 has examined one Gobinda Biswas as OPW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence,  two documents were marked as exhibit A & B respectively.  Other two documents, so relied upon by the O.P. no.1, were marked as exhibit C & D respectively without objection.  O.P. no.3 examined one witness namely Swapan Kumar Chatterjee as OPW-2 by tendering a written

                                                                                                                                                                Contd…………….P/6

                                                           

                                                                                                ( 6 )

 examination-in-chief and during his evidence, one inspection report has been marked as exhibit E- series.  No other witness has been examined by the O.Ps.

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is the complainant consumer under the provision of C.P. Act of the O.P. no.1 & 3 or not ?
3. Is the alleged accident took place due to negligence of the O.Ps.1 & 3 or due to defects in the gas cylinder, so supplied by the O.P. nos.1 & 3 ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

      For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

                   Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the O.Ps.  at the time of final hearing of this case.  We also do not find anything to hold that the present case is not maintainable and therefore this point is answered in the affirmative.

                   It is not denied and disputed that the O.P. no.3 is the principal supplier and the manufacturer of the gas cylinder in question.  It is also not denied and disputed that the complainant Sandip Singh is a consumer of domestic gas of Indane (O.P. no.3) for cooking supplied by O.P. no.3 through O.P. no.1 vide consumer no.36552 and LPG ID no.7500000090216889.  Admittedly on 04.11.2014, O.P. no.1-Usha Gas Agency supplied a LPG cylinder in the house of the complainant as per prior booking of the complainant.  It is not denied and disputed that on 13.11.2014, at about 9 a.m., the complainant made a complaint before the O.P. no.1 that the gas cylinder was not functioning when he tried to light the gas oven.  Admittedly, after receiving the said complaint, lodged by the complainant, O.P. no.1 sent a person named Debasis Majumder, said to be a trained mechanic, in the house of the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that the said mechanic reached his house at about 11 a.m. for rectifying the defect of the said cylinder and he tried to light the gas burner but the gas did not burn and thereafter he pressed the valve from the top of the cylinder with a screwdriver and thereafter  gas immediately started oozing out from the valve of the cylinder and as soon as the said mechanic lighted the gas oven, the gas, that oozed  out, got lighted causing  severe burn injuries to the mechanic Debasis Majumder, Tejpal Singh, the father of the complainant, Smt Ashima Kaur, the mother of the complainant, Kapil Singh, the brother of the complainant and Akrit Singh, the

                                                                                                                                                             Contd…………….P/7

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                   ( 7 )

 minor son of the complainant.  Those injured persons were immediately taken to hospital with burn injuries.  It is not denied and disputed that due to such burn injuries Debasis Majumder, Tejpal Singh, Ashima Kaur and Kapil Singh succumbed to such injuries and died and Akrit Singh, the minor son of the complainant, somehow survived from such burn injuries.  It is undisputed that after such occurrence, a police case was started against the O.P. no.1 and in that case, no charge- sheet has yet been submitted.  Fact remains  undisputed that in connection with that police case, one gas cylinder and some documents were seized by the I.O. vide a seizure list, copy of which has been marked in his case as exhibit- 4 during the evidence of PW-1.

                    Now the question arises as to whether there was any defect in the said gas cylinder and whether the said incident took place due to negligence of the mechanic of the O.P. no.1.  Although in his written complaint, the complainant Sandip Singh has given a vivid description of the incident of firing but from his cross-examination, we find that at the time of said occurrence, he was not present in his house.  His cross-examination further reveals that at the time of said occurrence, his wife Asima Kaur (PW-2) was  on the terrace of their house and neither he nor his wife had seen the said occurrence.  PW-2, Seema Kaur, the wife of the complainant, has also admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of occurrence she was on the roof of their house.  No other witness has been examined by the complainant to say as to how the occurrence of firing took place in his kitchen when said Debasis Mejumder was trying to remove the problem of the cylinder.  We thus find that there is no eye witness to the said occurrence of firing in the kitchen of the complainant due to leakage of gas.

                        Regarding the allegation of defect in the cylinder, as alleged by the complainant, we find that the complainant adduced no sort of evidence whatsoever to show and to prove that the said gas cylinder was defective.  Admittedly the said gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant on 04.11.2014 by the O.P. no.1 and the said cylinder was in the custody of the complainant in his house from 04.11.2014 to 13.11.2014.  It is not the case of the complainant that during this period he noticed any defect or any gas leakage in the said cylinder.  It is the case of the complainant that on 13.11.2014 when he tried to light the gas oven, the gas did not burn.  He does not allege that at that time, he noticed any smell of gas leakage from that cylinder. From the evidence of OPW-1 Gobinda Biswas, who deposed on behalf of O.P. no.1, we find that he has stated in his written examination-in-chief that after the occurrence on 13.11.2014, qualified engineer of the O.P. no.3 made an inspection at the place of occurrence and during such inspection he found that the said cylinder contained 12

                                                                                                                                                       Contd…………….P/8

                                                           

                                                                                     ( 8 )

K.G net gas out of total capacity of 15.50 K.G. and according to him had there been any defect in the said cylinder, valve of the LPG gas would have oozed out from the said cylinder.  We have already stated that regarding the allegation of defect in cylinder, complainant adduced no sort of evidence and no scientific test report has been produced. Therefore it cannot be held that there was any defect in the cylinder. 

                        Now about the allegation of negligencey on the part of the mechanic Debasish Majumder, we find that undisputedly O.P. no.1 had sent said mechanic Debasish Majumder to the house of the complainant to meet out the complaint in connection with the gas connection.  It has been brought on record by evidence that the said mechanic went at the house of the complainant to check the problem with the gas connection.   Fact remains undisputed that after his arrival there and in his presence, the occurrence of firing took place in the kitchen of the complainant due to heavy gas leakage and in such incident the said mechanic himself also sustained severe burn injuries alongwith others and he also succumbed to such injures.  According to O.P. no.1 the said mechanic was a skilled mechanic duly trained by O.P. no.3 and in support of such contention, O.P. no.1 has relied upon a certificate (exhibit-B) issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  From this certificate we find that Debasish Majumder attended two day’s training programme of Mechanic.  From this certificate we do not find that he was a very skilled mechanic and it is needless to say that a person having only two day’s training programme cannot be said to be a skilled mechanic.  It was also argued on behalf of the O.P. no.1 that a skilled mechanic like Debasish Majumder, who also sustained severe burn injuries in the said accident and succumbed to such injuries, is not expected that he would do any negligence to put his own life in peril.  We find no force in the said argument in as much as it is seen in our society that many motor accidents take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver having proper driving licence.  We have already stated that admittedly Debasish Majumder went to check the problem of gas connection in the house of the complainant and admittedly he sustained severe burn injuries there in the kitchen of the complainant. In the said incident as many as five persons including Debasish Majumder sustained severe burn injuries which resulted death of four victims out of five.  The consequence of dreadful incident indicates that while the said mechanic was trying to repairing the problem in connecting gas cylinder, huge quantity of gas oozed out from the cylinder and stored in the kitchen.  Certainly oozing out of gas could not go unnoticed by a mechanic due to it’s obnoxious smell.  Seeing that, a prudent mechanic should have open the doors and windows for letting fresh air to come inside the kitchen and to ask the other members of the family, who assembled there, to go

                                                                                                                                                              Contd…………….P/9

                                                           

                                                                                    ( 9 )

 outside the place before igniting match stick or gas lighter on the oven.  Consequence of the terrible incident indicates that the said mechanic did not do so before putting light on the oven as a result of which he himself alongwith four others sustained severe burn injuries.  Consequence of the incident raises a serious doubt about the skill and ability of said Debasish Majumder.  We therefore find that the said skilled mechanic did notexercise due care while repairing the gas segre or while meeting out the complaint raised by the complainant. All these circumstances clearly indicate the guilt of the mechanic and it is therefore held that the incident took place due to rashness or negligence of Debasish Majumder, the mechanic of the O.P. no.1.  An attempt has been made by the O.P. no.3 during the cross-examination of PW-1 that one boy was playing in the kitchen with gas lighter, which PW-1 has denied.  No evidence at all has been adduced by the O.Ps. to show and to prove that any boy was at all playing in the kitchen with gas lighter.  So we find no force in such attempt made by the O.P. no.3.  It is also to be stated here that none of the O.Ps did prove that the complainant or any member of his family handled the burner or gas cylinder with negligence or carelessness.  The only conclusion which we can safely arrive at is that the incident took place due to negligent act of the mechanic of the O.P. no.1 and as per vicarious liability, O.P. no.1 is liable for the act of its servant or employee. 

                        Admittedly there is a contract of indemnity between O.P. no.1 and O.P. no.2-Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. The policy of the said insurance has been marked as exhibit-9 in this case.  From this exhibit 9, we find that the said policy was valid from 21.09.2014 to the mid-night of 20.09.2015.  From exhibit-6, which is a letter dated 17.03.2015, so sent by the Senior Divisional Manager of the O.P. no.3 to the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant in response to a notice dated 02.05.2015, so sent on behalf of the complainant claiming compensation for the death of Kapil Singh, Ashima Kaur, Tejpal Singh and injury to Akrit Singh due to such accident, we find that by the said letter the O.P. no.3 has admitted that according to the policy (exhibit-9 ) their company covers the liability up to the limit of Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of third parties.

                        Regarding the claim of compensation we find from the petition of complaint in case nos.CC 47/2015, CC 48/2015 and CC 49/2015 that the complainant has prayed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively for the death of his father Tejpal Singh, brother Kapil Singh and mother Ashima Singh on the ground that they died due to such accident leaving behind the complainant as their sole surviving legal heir and for mental agony and sufferings.  Nowhere in his complaint and evidence, the complainant has stated that he was dependent upon those deceased persons. 

                                                                                                                                                              Contd…………….P/10

                                                            

                                                                                  ( 10 )

 So question of loss of dependency due to their death does not arise and therefore on that ground the complainant is not entitled to get any award of compensation.  However, since all those three victims who died due to such occurrence happened to be the parents and brother respectively of the complainant, so obviously due to their  such tragic death, the complainant has suffered much pain and agony.  For such mental sufferings,  the complainant is entitled to get an award of compensation and to our view, an amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each, if allowed, in each of those three cases alongwith litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- each, would meet the ends of justice.

                        Regarding the claim of compensation as prayed for in CC/50/2015 due to the injuries sustained by Akrit Singh, minor son of the complainant, we find that the complainant has stated that his minor son sustained 60% burn injuries on his person due to such accident and for his treatment the complainant has already spent Rs.15,00,000/- and for his further treatment he requires Rs.5,00,000/- more and the complainant has therefore claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the O.Ps.  It is not denied and disputed that the minor son of the complainant also sustained burn injuries due to such occurrence but the complainant has produced medical bills (exhibit-10) of Rs.7,00,000/- only and not of Rs.15,00,000/- and he does not produce any medical papers to show that he requires Rs.5,00,000/- more for further treatment of his minor son. He also produce no disablement certificate of his minor son. Of course he has suffered much pain and agony for such injuries and treatment of his minor son.  So considering the medical bills (exhibit-10 series) and the mental pain and sufferings of the complainant due to such injuries of his minor son, we think that an award of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.  We have already held that admittedly in terms of the policy of insurance (exhibit- 9) and in view of letter dated 17.03.2015 (exhibit-6) the O.P. no.3 covers the liability up to the limit of Rs.10,00,000/- against the third party and therefore liability of O.P. nos. 1 & 2 is joint and several in respect of that amount of Rs.10,00,000/-  out of the total amount of compensation. 

                        In the result and in view of our above findings, all the four cases deserve to be allowed in part.        

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                               that the complaint case nos.47/2015, 48/2015, 49/2015  & 50/2015 are allowed on contest in part analogously  against O.P. nos.1 & 2 with cost and dismissed on contest against O.P. no.3 and dismissed ex parte against O.P. no.4 without cost.

                                                                                                                                                                Contd…………….P/11

                                                           

                                                                                    ( 11 )

O.P. nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount and they are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.  All such payment shall be made within two months from this date of order.

                        This analogous  judgment and order will govern all the four complaint case    nos. 47/2015, 48/2015, 49/2015 & 50/2015.  Let copies of this order be tagged with case records of complaint case nos. 48/2015, 49/2015 & 50/2015.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

     Dictated and Corrected by me

               Sd/-B. Pramanik.            Sd/- P.K. Singha         Sd/- S. Sarkar                Sd/-B. Pramanik.     

                     President                          Member                     Member                          President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur