BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 742 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 06.12.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 17.06.2011 |
Parkash Kaur aged 72 years wife of Sh.Harbhajan Singh r/o H.No.217, Block 4, Mohali Employees Co-operative Group Building Society, Sector 68, Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S The Director, Primary Education Department (AC), Punjab SCO No.34, Sector 17-E,Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Rakesh K.Sharma, Adv. for complainant. OP exparte. --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Parkash Kaur has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant retired as centre Head Teacher from Govt. Primary School, Phase-2, Mohali on 31.01.1996. The husband of the complainant was operated upon for knees on different occasions and consequently his knees were replaced. The complainant incurred Rs.2,59,199/- on the treatment of her husband. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim for medical reimbursement with OP by completing all the requisite formalities. Vide letter dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure C-2), the Block Education Officer, Mohali intimated the complainant that OP would process the claim of medical reimbursement. The complainant contacted the OP number of times for the release of the claim but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 17.11.2009 upon the OP but that too has no effect. It is the allegation of the complainant that on 11.01.2010 one of the officials of the OP namely Sh.Gupta informed that her claim has been sanctioned for Rs.2,03,707/- against Rs.2,59,199/-. The complainant alleged that despite submitting of her affidavit, OP failed to release the medical reimbursement claim, hence, this complaint. 2. Initially, OP appeared through the representative but subsequently OP absented, hence proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.05.2011. 3. The complainant led evidence in support of her contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 5. During the course of argument, on 20.05.2011, the learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that the complainant has received the amount of Rs.2,03,707/- from the OP during the pendency of the complaint. However the learned counsel for the complainant argued that since the medical reimbursement claim of Rs.2,03,707/- has been released to the complainant after the filing of the complaint, therefore, she is entitled for interest, compensation and costs of litigation. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.2,03,707/- which has been paid by OP on account of medical reimbursement. However, the complainant is certainly entitled for Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 7. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 8. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 17.06.2011 | | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | , | |
