ORDER AFTER REMAND
PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
That the Complainant is proprietor M/s. Shabash and is carrying on business of Garment Exports, Readymade Garment and is also Importers, Exporters and Manufacturer. This complaint is filed by Mr. Satyapal Ramprakash Khanna constituted Attorney of Mr. Subhash Ramprakash Khanna.
2) The Complainant has taken Money Assurance Burglary Policy bearing Policy No.111900/48/03/00920 dtd.12/05/2003 from the Opposite Party for the money insured Rs.41,00,000/- relating to burglary of money for the period 22/05/2003 to 21/05/2004. The Complainant has produced photocopy of the aforesaid Insurance Policy Schedule alongwith complaint at Exh.‘A’.
3) It is submitted that between 16/08/2003 to 18/08/2003 incident of burglary took place in the factory and the Complainant in which sum of Rs.4,35,000/- cash and other articles were stolen. After the aforesaid incident burglary, Complainant filed Police Complaint on 18/08/03. Police registered F.I.R. No.209/2003 after recording of the statement of the Complainant. A copy of F.I.R. is produced at Exhibit ‘B’. After incident of burglary Complainant gave information of burglary to Opposite Party and lodged his claim. Thereafter, Opposite Party appointed their Surveyors C.P.Mehta & Co. After visiting their representative Mr. Rushabh Dedhis and Mr. Subash Nair on 19/08/2003 at the site, the surveyor sent a letter dtd.21/08/2003 and another letter dtd.21/10/03 to the Ccomplainant and thereby called upon the Complainant to furnish required documents. The Complainant clarified that incidence of Burglary and stated about loss of total cash of Rs.4,75,457/- After the verification Complainant submitted all the information and document required by the Surveyor. Surveyor sent a letter dtd.03/11/2004 to the Complainant and a copy thereof to the Opposite Party inter-alia, confirming correspondence and discussion in respect of settlement of the claim. The said letter was duly replied by the Complainant on 25/11/2004.
4) It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party’s Surveyor demanded documents, which were not relevant, with a intension to delay settlement of the claim. The Complainant made complaint regarding conduct’s of the Surveyor C P Mehta & Co. to submit report and copy their of to the Complainant then surveyors submitted report to Opposite Party and Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.08/06/2005 called upon Complainant to clarify certain quarries by letter dtd.25/06/2005. Complainant requested to Opposite Party to settle the claim.
5) It is alleged by the Complainant that there is deficiency in service of the Opposite Party in settling claim. Inspite of submission of all documents required by Opposite Party and their surveyor, on 11/08/2005, Opposite Party sent a letter to Complainant informing that claim of the Complainant under the said policy is admissible to extent of Rs.35,580/- as against total claim of Rs.4,75,457/-. By letter dtd.24/11/2005 the Complainant informed Opposite Party that his claim is reduced without any justifiable grounds and very less amount is offered. The Complainant gave consent for appointment for second surveyor. Opposite Party has not replied aforesaid letter. No report of the Surveyor was furnished to the Complainant.
6) Opposite Party by letter dtd.20/01/2006 asked the Complainant that the offer as made be accepted. The Complainant had sent many letters to the Opposite Party but there was no response from Opposite Party. The Complainant vide letter dtd.02/08/2007 requested Opposite Party for the appointment of second surveyor. Complainant claim for Rs.4,35,000/- was genuine claim but Opposite Party failed and neglected to settle a claim. The Opposite Party by the letter dtd.12/02/08 asked the complainant to sent the voucher of Rs.35,580/- towards the full and final settlement of Complainant claim. According to the Complainant, Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.4,38,252/- with interest as per the settlement of claim. As Opposite Party failed and neglected to pay genuine claim of the Complainant, the Complainant has filed this complaint.
7) Alongwith complaint Complainant has produced photocopy of the schedule of Burglary Policy, copy of payment of receipt, copy of FIR, copy of settlement of recorded by the police, copies of the correspondence with the Opposite Party their surveyors, copy of letter dtd.11/08/05 of Opposite Party by which Opposite Party offered to pay Rs.35,580/- etc.
8) Notice of this Complaint was sent to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Notice was duly served on the Opposite Party. Postal acknowledgement is also produced on record. Inspite of service with notice to the Opposite Party, Opposite Party has not appeared before the Forum. So on 12/05/2010 ex-parte order was passed against the Opposite Party.
9)After hearing Ld.Advocate Prashant Prabhu for the Complainant, this Forum as by order dtd.26/09/2011 dismissed the complaint by holding that complaint which is filed by Satyapal R. Khanna as Power of Attorney of Shri. Subhash R. Khanna – Proprietor of M/s. Shabash, is not maintainable in view of definition of Complainant given in Sec.2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the Complainant had preferred First Appeal No.A/11/944 before the Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission has held that complaint filed by the authorized representative is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in view of Consumer Protection Act, Regulation 2005. The Hon’ble State Commission by order dtd.17/07/2012 allowed the appeal and passed following order -
“Impugned order dated 26/Set/2011 passed by the District Forum, South Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.324 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Complaint is restored to its original position. On behalf of the Respondent/Opponent Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil is present before us and, therefore, we direct both the parties to remain present before the District Forum on 01/Aug/2012, positively.
District Forum is directed to dispose of the complaint before 31/Agu/2012.
We quantify costs of this appeal at 2,000/-. However, the District Forum is hereby directed that in case the District Forum decides it, it should be recovered from the loosing party.”
After restoration of complaint to its original position, Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that cause of action for this complaint arose on 16/08/03 and complaint filed in the month of December, 2009, is not within limitation. Therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
10) It is submitted by the Opposite Party that claim was rightly repudiated after receiving the surveyor’s report in which it is stated that “the claim remains unsubstantiated and there is no liability to pay any claim.” Till date the Complainant has not submitted necessary documents to substantiate his claim. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that money insurance policies issued to M/s. Roopchand Satyapal Khanna is not functioning in this loss as the address of the premises is different from where the loss has taken place. Further, cash loss of M/s. Subhash, under the policy for an amount of Rs.2,38,252/- attracts exclusion clause no.4 of the policy, hence, the Complainant’s claim for cash loss cannot be considered. Further it is contended that the alleged cash was not kept in safe or strong room as warranted by the policy conditions. The loss of spare parts only may be admissible under the policy to the tune of Rs.35,580/-.
11) Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant had taken policy mentioned in the complaint from the Opposite Party. It is submitted that as per F.I.R., datd.18/08/03 filed by the Complainant, it is clear that the cash was kept in the drawer of the table of the Complainant and not in the safe or strong room this evokes exception clause no.4 of the policy. Therefore, Opposite Party is not liable to pay the same.
12) It is submitted that Opposite Party had appointed surveyor C.P. Mehta & Co. to survey the loss caused by the Burglary. The Opposite Party has denied rest of the averments made in complaint para no.4 to 7. The Opposite Party by letter dtd.21/08/03 sought number of documents from the complainant. In the F.I.R. initially value of the stolen goods was shown as US$ 2049.26 i.e. Indian Rs.92,205/-. Thereafter, the Complainant kept on changing his statements as to the bills of goods were in Sterlings and not in dollars. The Complainant has not substantiated his claim by relevant documents. Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party by his letter dtd.08/01/05 requested by the Complainant to furnish number of documents and by another letter sought necessary clarification but the Complainant deliberately avoided to provide information sought by the surveyor. Considering non-cooperation from the Complainant, but after application of condition of average as valued at risk was more than insurance value, the claim was worked out to Rs.35,580/- but claim was assessed without prejudice. The Opposite Party had sent voucher of Rs.35,580/- towards full & final settlement of the claim which the Complainant declined. The Opposite Party has denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and therefore, complaint may be dismissed with cost.
13) The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument. The Opposite Party has also filed written argument. We heard oral submissions of Ld.Adv. Shri.Shirsath for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Sanil for the Opposite Party.
14) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?
Findings : Yes.
Point No.3 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?
Findings : As per final order.
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- In the written version the Opposite Party has raised contention that present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Ld.Advocate Mr. Sanil for the Opposite Party has submitted that in this case cause of action arose on 16/08/2003, whereas, the complaint is filed in December, 2009 which is barred by law of limitation. In support of his contention he has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kandimalla’s case. On the contrary, Ld.Advocate Mr. Shirsath for the Complainant has submitted that facts of the present case are altogether different than the facts of the case stated in the Kandimalla’s case and therefore, decision of Kandimalla’s case is not applicable to the present case. By referring to the facts stated in the Kandimalla’s case, it is pointed out that in the said case fire took place in the intervening night between 22nd & 23rd March, 1988 in the godown’s but Insured had not made any claim whatsoever with the Insurance Company for the loss suffered in the fire on 23/03/1988. Only on 06/01/1992, the Insured for the first time asked for supply of “Claim Form” in order to prefer claim. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the said claim is barred by limitation.
It is submitted on behalf of Complainant in the instant case burglary took place in the factory of the Complainant between 16/08/03 to 18/08/03. On 18/08/03, itself the Complainant lodged complaint to police and F.I.R. was registered. The Complainant also immediately gave information of burglary to the Opposite Party. After receipt of information the Opposite Party appointed their Surveyors M/s. C.P. Mehta & Co. Ld.Advocate Mr. Shirsath referred to the Surveyor M/s. C.P. Mehta’s letter dtd.21/08/03 addressed to the Complainant. It is submitted that in this case there was no delay in submitting claim to the Insurance Company.
In Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. & Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is manifest from the letter that till that date the appellant had not made any claim whatsoever with the Insurance Company for the loss suffered in the fire on 23rd March, 1998. As a matter of fact, only on 6th November, 1992 they, for the first time, asked for supply of “claim forms” in order to prefer a claim. By that time period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act had expired.”
Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that from time to time the Complainant supplied the necessary information called by the Surveyor M/s. C.P. Mehta, even then with malafide intention Surveyor M/s. C.P. Mehta from time to time wrote letters and asked the Complainant to submit information which was already supplied. Surveyor M/s. C.P. Mehta deliberately did not submit his report and therefore, in the month of January, 2005, the Complainant wrote letters to the Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party and also to the Chairman Grievance Cell of Opposite Party and made complaint against the Surveyor M/s. C.P. Mehta. By referring to the Opposite Party’s letter dtd.11/08/05, it is submitted that Opposite Party wrongly sanctioned claim of meager amount of Rs.35,580/- and rejected rest of the claim amount of the Complainant on unjustifiable grounds. Therefore, the Complainant wrote letters to the Opposite Party. By referring to the correspondence between the parties it is submitted that there was discussion about appointment of second surveyor. However, subsequently Opposite Party finally rejected the claims of the Complainant vide their letter dtd.12/02/2008. Copy of the said letter is produced alongwith complaint at Exh.‘2’ (page no.61). It is submitted by Ld.Advocate for the Complainant that Opposite Party had assured the Complainant to reconsider claim by appointment of second surveyor but finally rejected his claim vide letter dtd.12/02/08. Therefore, complaint which is filed on 11/12/2009 is within prescribed period of limitation. In support of his contention Ld.Advocate Mr. Shirsath has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Brahmdeo Panjiyara (R.P. No.4271 of 2007) and Major (Retired) D.R. Singh V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (R.P. No.4009 of 2007).
As discussed above facts of this are totally different than the facts stated in the reported judgment of Kandimalla’s case. Therefore, in our humble opinion decision in Kandimalla’s case is not applicable to the present case. From the evidence produced on record, it appears that Opposite Party had assured the Complainant that they will reconsider their decision regarding claim of the Complainant. In the letter dtd.12/02/08 sent to the Complainant, the Opposite Party has stated that –
“Re: Claim for loss due burglary on 18th August, 2003……. This has reference to your above mentioned claim. The folder was once again referred to the surveyor for the final report. We have now received his report with their comments “claim remains unsubstantiated and there is no liability to pay any claim.
We would like to mention here that your request for appointment of second surveyor could not be done as this constitutes violation of IRDA provision. ……
We stand by the decision taken by our Company and are once again enclosing herewith the voucher for Rs.35,580/- as full and final settlement……”
Facts of this case rather similar to the facts reported in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Prem Printing Press, 2009 CTJ 240 (Supreme Court)(CP). In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that -
“After the first repudiation of the claim when the Respondent again approached the Appellant, the Respondent given a hope that the matter was being considered afresh – Final decision conveyed to it only on 28/07/1994 – Respondent made its complaint on 06/08/1994 – Complaint so made held to be very much within three months of 28/07/1994.”
In this case the Complainant’s claim was finally partly allowed to the extent of Rs.35,580/- in full and final settlement by the Opposite Party vide letter dtd.12/02/08. Present complaint is filed on 11/12/09 which is within prescribed period of limitation of two years. Relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Prem Printing Press, we hold that complaint is within period of limitation. Hence, we hold that complaint is not barred by law of limitation. In the result we answered point no.1 in the negative.
Point No.2 :- The Complainant is a Proprietor of Shabash and carrying on business of Garment Export, readymade Garments and is also Importers, Export and Manufacturers. The Complainant has taken Money Assurance Burglary Policy for the period commencing from 22/05/03 to 21/05/04 from the Opposite Party for payment of necessary premium. The Complainant has produced xerox copy of the policy schedule of aforesaid insurance policy alongwith complaint at Exh. ‘A’. The Opposite Party in their written statement have admitted that they have issued insurance policy to the Complainant for the period from 22/05/2003 to 21/05/2004. Sum insured for stock-in-trade is Rs.25 Lacs, cash and or currency is Rs.1 Lac, others to be specified Rs.10 Lacs i.e. total sum insured is Rs.36 Lacs. The Opposite Party has admitted that they have issued aforesaid policy to the Complainant.
It is case of the Complainant that between 15/08/03 and 18/08/03, burglary took place in the factory of the Complainant and cash of Rs.4,35,000/- and other articles were stolen. On 18/08/03 complaint was filed to the police station. F.I.R. No.2009 of 2003 was registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai. Copy of F.I.R. is annexed to the complaint at Exh.‘B. Information of burglary was given to the Opposite Party. Then the Opposite Party appointed C.P. Mehta & Co. as a Surveyor, whose representative visited site on 19/08/03. The surveyor wrote two letters and thereby called upon the Complainant for necessary documents in respect of the claim. The Complainant informed surveyor cash loss of Rs.4,75,457/-. Copy of the said letter is produced at Exh.‘E’. According to the Complainant, necessary documents were provided to the Surveyor. The Complainant furnished all information as required by the surveyor. Even then from time to time surveyor wrote letters to the Complainant and called upon to furnish documents. The Complainant made grievance about the same to the Divisional Manager of Opposite Party. Copy of the said letter is produced alongwith complaint at Exh.‘M’. Opposite Party vide letter dtd.17/02/05 assured that Complainant’s grievance would be looked into. Copy of aforesaid letter is produced alongwith complaint at Exh. ‘N’. However, instead of settling Complainant’s claim Opposite Party’s surveyor again sent letter dtd.03/03/05 to the Complainant and called upon to submit information. The Complainant sent reply to the said letter and requested for early settlement of the claim. Then the Complainant made grievance to the Chairman of Opposite Party. Opposite Parties sent letter dtd.04/04/05 to their surveyor and thereby called upon surveyor to submit report and a copy thereof to the Complainant. Opposite Party’s aforesaid letter is produced alongwith complaint at Exh.‘T’. Lastly Opposite Party’s vide letter dtd.11/089/05 informed the Complainant that “Complainant’s claim under the said insurance policy admissible to the extend of Rs.35,180/- against total claim of Rs.4,75,457/-.” In the said letter it was informed to the Complainant that “appointment of second surveyor may not increase compensation amount and appointment of second surveyor again still require cooperation from the Complainant for assessment of the claim. The Complainant refused to accept sum of Rs.35,180/- being inadequate compensation offered by the Opposite Party as full & final settlement of Complainant’s claim. Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has referred to F.I.R. dtd.18/08/03 lodged to Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai and point out that list of stolen articles stated in US$ 2049.26 which was equal to Indian Rs.92,205/-. It appears that during the course of investigation stolen articles and cash amount worth Rs.4, 35000/- was not recovered and ‘A’ summery was applied by the police and granted by MM, 22 Fort, Andheri, Mumbai. It appears from the letters written to the surveyors.
Complainant informed the Surveyor that in the incident of Burglary taken place dtd.16/08/03 to 18/08/03 total cash is Rs.3,48,252/- + Camera and Gold Chain worth Rs.35,000/- and Electronic parts worth Rs.92,205/- i.e. total loss Rs.4,75,457/-. It is submitted on behalf of Complainant that manufacturing activity of sister concern of the Complainant being namely Roopchand Satyapal, Priyanka & Sons and K.G. Clothing are carried together.
From time to time the Complainant informed the surveyor Shri. C.P. Metha & Co. appointed by Opposite Party about total loss of Rs.4,75,457/- suffered by the Complainant. It is submitted that surveyor C.P. Mehta & Co. deliberately caused delay in submitting report. It appears from Opposite Party’s letter dtd.04/04/05 produced by the Complainant that Dy. Manager of Opposite Party called upon M/s. C.P. Mehta and Company to submit their report on priority basis. The Complainant’s claim was for Rs.4,38,952/-, however, Opposite Party has settled claim at Rs.35,580/- and offered to pay the said amount as full & final settlement. Ld.Advocate Sanil for the Opposite Party has submitted that Complainant’s claim for cash loss of Rs.2,38,252/- is not payable in view of exclusion clause no.4 of the policy. It is further submitted that cash was not kept in safe or strong room as warranted by the policy condition. The Complainant’s claim in respect of spare parts is admissible and accordingly Opposite Party has settled his claim at Rs.35,580/- but the Complainant has refused to accept the said amount.
In this case the Complainant has produced only policy schedule alongwith complaint at Exh. ‘A’. The Opposite Party has not produced terms and conditions of the said policy. It is contended on behalf of Opposite Party that certain claim is executed as per the exclusion clause of the policy, then it was necessary on the part of Opposite Party to produced terms and conditions of the policy before this Form. As Opposite Parties failed to produce terms and conditions of the policy we cannot rely upon bare statement made by the Ld.Advocate of the Opposite Party that certain claim of the Complainant is not payable in view of the exclusion clause. It is undisputed fact that Opposite Party has appointed M/s. C.P. Mehta & Co. as a Surveyor. Further it appears that from time to time the Complainant supplied information to the Surveyor M/s. C.P. Mehta & Co. The Opposite Party has not produced report of the surveyor before this Forum nor supplied copy of the report to the Complainant. The Complainant’s claim for reimbursement of loss of Rs.4,75,457/- is supported by F.I.R., Police Punchnama, etc., therefore, considering evidence on record, we hold that settlement of claim without any basis at Rs.35,580/- is deficiency in service of Opposite Party. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.3 :- Admittedly the Opposite Party has issued Money Assurance Burglary Policy annexed with the complaint for the period 22/05/03 to 21/05/04 to the Complainant to the Complainant’s factory office-cum-godown, situated at 59 Kurla Andheri Road, Khanna Estate, Mumbai – 72. In the said policy the Opposite Party has given total sum assured of Rs.36,000/- to the Complainant. In the complaint para no.3 it is averred that Burglary took place in the Complainant’s factory during the period from 16/08/03 to 18/08/03 and in the said Burglary the Complainant lost sum of Rs.4,35,000/- and other articles. In complaint para no.4, it is averred that after due verification it was noticed that total cash loss was Rs.4,75,457/-. In the F.I.R. lodged to Sakinaka Police on 18/08/036 description of stolen property is stated as cash amount of Rs.4 Lacs + Digital Camera and Gold Chain, etc. wroth Rs.35,000/- i.e. total Rs.4,35,000/- in supplementary statement. On that day in a statement before police Mr. Subhash Khanna has given description of stolen property Rs.4 Lacs in cash, digital camera & gold chain, etc. i.e. total amount of Rs.4,35,000/-. In supplementary statement dtd.03/10/03, Mr. Subhash Khanna has stated value of stolen para as US$ 2049.26 i.e. Rs.92,205/- in a letter dtd.12/12/03 addressed to C.P. Mehta & Co., a Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party the Complainant has informed that in the incident of burglary total cash of Rs.3,48,252/- gold chain worth Rs.35,000/-, electronic parts worth Rs.92,205/- i.e. total property worth Rs.4,75,457/- was stolen. Ld.Advocate Shri. Shirsath for the Complainant has submitted that price of stolen parts was wrongly stated in the F.I.R. in fact price was in Sterling 2009.26 which is equallant to Rs.1,65,000/-. He has referred to letter dtd.25/01/04 addressed to M/s. C.P. Mehta & Co. by the Complainant at Exh.‘G’.
As mentioned earlier as per the schedule of policy produced by the Complainant alongwith complaint sum assured for stock-in-trade is Rs.25 Lacs for coins/currency notes, cash or currency Rs.1 Lac and others to be specified Rs.10 Lacs. The Complainant’s claim is that during the course of burglary cash amount of Rs.4 Lacs was stolen. Out of stolen cash of Rs.4 Lacs, as per the terms of policy the Complainant is entitled to assured sum of Rs.1 Lac only. The Complainant is not entitled to recover rest of Rs.3 Lacs of stolen cash from the Opposite Party. In the F.I.R. price of stolen goods i.e. Nikon Digital Camera of Rs.30,000/- and Gold Chain of Rs.5,000/-mentioned. The Complainant’s claim for aforesaid articles is only for 35,000/-. In supplementary statements the Complainant has given description of stolen spare parts and its price is stated as US$ 2049.26 i.e. Indian Rs.92,205/-. As mentioned in the letter dtd.25/11/04, the Complainant informed surveyor that price of spare part was wrongly stated in dollars but in fact, it was sterling 2,009.26 i.e. INR 1,65,000/-. Besides this letter, the Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that price of spare parts was in fact in sterling pounds. On the contrary in the F.I.R., there is no mention of price was in sterling/pounds. In the supplementary statement of 03/10/03 the Complainant Subhash Khanna has given description of stolen articles and total price is 2049.26 dollars i.e. Indian Rs.92,205/-. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant had informed the police that price of spare parts was sterling/pounds. Considering the evidence on record and sum assured in the policy schedule we think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant Rs.1 Lac for stolen cash or currency, Rs.92,205/- towards stolen spare parts and Rs.35,000/- towards stolen digital camera and gold chain i.e. total amount of Rs.2,27,205/-.
The Complainant has claimed interest @ 12% p.a. on aforesaid sum from 18/08/03. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, we think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant interest on Rs.2,27,205/- @ 9% p.a. from 12/02/08 till realization of entire amount to the Complainant. The Complainant has also prayed for other reliefs as may deem fit and proper. As the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, we think it just to direct to Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings + Rs.2,000/- as cost of an appeal as directed by the Hon’ble State Commission in its order dtd.17/07/2012. Hence, we passed following order -
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.324/2009 is partly allowed.
ii.Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,27,205/- (Rs. Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Two
Hundred Five Only) to the Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. on aforesaid amount from 12/02/2008 till
realization of entire amount to the Complainant.
iii.Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) towards cost of
proceedings and Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand Only) as cost of an appeal as directed by the Hon’ble State
Commission in its order dtd.17/07/2012.
iv.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
