Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of compensation and costs of litigation, is directed against the order dated 5.7.2011 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed OP No.1, to pay a sum of Rs.23,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. OP No.1 was also directed to pay, to the complainant, a sum of Rs.1000/-, as costs of litigation, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 2. The complainant got his BMW car insured from OP-1 (now respondent No.1) for the period from 21.4.2008 to 20.4.2009. The said car met with an accident. OP No.2 (now respondent No.2) raised a bill of Rs.2,90,714/- towards the repair of car. It was stated that OP-1 deducted an amount of Rs.23,000/- on account of salvage charges. OP No.2 had offered OP-1, to deposit the salvage, at the time of survey. It was further stated that the complainant contacted OP-1, for depositing the salvage, and also sent a registered letter dated 26.8.2008. It was further stated that OP-1 promised to credit the amount of salvage, but he failed to do so despite service of notice. It was further stated that, as such, OP No.1 was deficient, in rendering service and also indulged 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 No.1, in its reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that, as per the assessment of loss, made by the surveyor, and according to the terms and conditions of the policy, OP No.1 after deducting Rs.23,000/- towards salvage, paid the remaining amount to OP No.2. It was denied that any assurance was given by OP No.1, for crediting the amount of salvage to the account of the complainant. It was further stated that the salvage charges which were deducted, were to be adjusted by the repairer i.e. OP No.2, in the final bill. It was denied that OP No.1 was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. OP No.2, was duly served, but neither he, nor any duly authorized agent on his behalf, came present, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against ex parte. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum, passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 7 Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequacy of compensation, and litigation costs, awarded by the District Forum, the instant appeal, was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the appellant contacted the OPs for depositing the salvage many a time, on telephone and even a letter was sent, in that regard. He further submitted that the appellant had requested OP No.1, a number of times, to credit the amount of salvage, but despite reminders, the same was not done. He further submitted that the appellant was harassed, for a long time, by OP No.1 by not paying him the salvage amount, before the filing of the complaint, which was instituted on 26.4.2010. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the appellant was entitled to compensation, for physical harassment and mental agony caused to him, at least to the tune of Rs. One lac and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He further submitted that the compensation and litigation costs, awarded by the District Forum, being highly meagre, are required to be enhanced. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum be accordingly modified, by accepting the appeal. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, after deducting a sum of Rs.23,000/-, on account of salvage charges, the remaining amount was paid to the complainant. It is evident from para No.6 of the order of the District Forum, that during the course of arguments, the Counsel for OP No.1, presented a cheque, for an amount of Rs.23,000/-, on account of salvage charges, but the same was not accepted by the complainant, on the ground, that he was entitled to compensation and litigation costs, as the said cheque was offered to him, after filing of the complaint. No doubt, there was some delay, on the part of the OPs, in making payment of the salvage charges, to the complainant. However, it may be stated here, that the Consumer For a, is required to take into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, on record, before arriving at a conclusion, as to what amount of compensation and litigation costs, should be awarded, to the complainant. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the complainants, at the cost of the service providers. The compensation required to be awarded, by the Consumer Foras, should be reasonable, fair and just. It should neither be excessive, nor too meagre. The District Forum, after taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances, on record, as also the evidence, adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant was physically harassed and caused mental agony by OP No.1 on account of non-payment of salvage charges in time. It was, after taking into consideration, each and every aspect of the matter, that the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that compensation, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, for mental agony, and physical harassment, and litigation costs, to the tune of Rs.1000/-, if awarded, to the complainant, would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, compensation and litigation expenses, awarded, in this case, cannot be said to be meagre. The same are just, fair and reasonable. No ground, whatsoever, therefore, is made out for the enhancement of compensation, and litigation expenses, awarded to the complainant. 11. The order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
