STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 22.06.2018
Date of final hearing: 05.01.2024
Date of pronouncement: 15.02.2024
CONSUMER COMPLAINTNO. 382 of 2018
Pradeep Dayma aged about 27 years S/o Sh.Jaiveer Singh R/o H.No.1132, Sector-9, Faridabad-Haryana.…..Complainant
Versus
1. Unity Earthtech (Hyundai Construction Equipment) Head Office at Plot No.1140-41 Sector 58, Faridabad-Haryana through its authorized representative.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. (A Govt. of India Undertaking) D.O.XXIX (Ckode No.361800) C-32, Community Centre, Industrial Area Phase-1, Naraina, New Delhi.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. ( A Govt. of India Undertaking), 5c/1&2, Neelam Chowk, New Industrial town, Faridabad
4. SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. As agent under agency code No.91289000000001, B-10, 4th Floor, Crown Plaza, Mathura Road, Sector 15-A, Faridabad (Hry.), Agent contact No.01127033907 C/o National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. Industrial Area Phase-1, Naraina, New Delhi.…..Opposite Parties
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr.Neeraj Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Mr.Manju Goel, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Mr. J.P.Nahar, Advocate for opposite parties Nos.2 and 3.
Service of opposite party No.4 already dispensed with.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Brief facts of case are that: complainant purchased Hyundai Hydraulic Excavator Machine (herein referred as the Machine) vide invoice dated 07.10.2016 for Rs.51,00,000/- (FiftyOne lacs) from Unity Earthtech-OP No.1. This amount include the amount payable by OP No.1 for facilitating delivery of insured machine from Pune to complainant. Machine was financed by HDB Financial Services Limited.
2. National Insurance Company Limited-OP Nos.2 and 3 issued insurance policy of this machine; operative from 17.10.2016 to 16.10.2017 and charged Rs.18,768/- as premium. Proposal rate of insurance is 07.10.2016 viz date of invoice.
3. Excavator machine was purchased for purpose of loading/unloading earth and stone, in process of stone crushing, in stone crusher zone. After purchase; machine,for its proper functioning,was rented out by complainant to one Aas Mohammad S/o Hansa, R/o Village Ladlaka, Tehsil: Kama, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan) vide rent note dated 09.12.2016.
4. During night of 22/23.12.2016, there was huge land slide at crusher zone Bharatpur at village Chhapra (Rajasthan). Machine was buried under earth and debris of stone. Immediately, complainant informed Hyundai dealer, Unity Earth-tech on 23.12.2016 (three calls). On his request, spot was inspected on 23.12.2016. Inspection report dated 24.12.2016 was prepared by OP No.1. Photographs were taken during inspection. In inspection report dated 24.12.2016, it is mentioned that machine was under earth debris and same could not be inspected.
5. OP Nos.2 and 3 got damaged machine examined through “Mack Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.” which prepared note dated 20.03.2017 demanding certain details. OP Nos. 2 and 3 alleged that complainant gave late intimation of accident to it. For which complainant received letter dated 28.08.2017, 4.09.2017 from insurer alleging the date of intimation by complainant as 20.01.2017, being delayed. Vide letter dated 28.08.2017; requirement for supply of some documents for processing of the claim was made. Complainant alleged that insurer was factually incorrect; Administrative Officer of Ops (No. 2 & 3) kept on pursing complainant’s case through emails. (Note: Dates of emails are mentioned in para 12 of complaint).
6. Till 29.12.2017, no remedial steps were taken by OP NO.-1-Unity Earthtech or by Ops No.2 and 3-insurance company, to reimburse his loss. Legal notice dated 29.12.2017 was sent through regd. Post. Complainant received letter dated 29.12.2017 from insurer (OPs No. 2 & 3) mentioning grounds for not entertaining his insurance claim of damage of machine. It is pleaded that untenable or illegal grounds were mentioned. Complainant got examined the machine from OP No.1 and as per quotation dated 23.03.2017 prepared by company; total damage of Rs.61,20,473/-, is over and above, the value of new machine as well as insured amount. OP No.2 vide letter dated 18.01.2018 considered the complainant’s claim on non-standard basis by deducting 30% of claim amount. On unsustainable basis; deduction of 30% from claimed amount was being made and complainant was asked to give consent for same. Another intimation dated 21.03.2018 as final reminder was addressed to complainant by OPs No. 2 & 3. Letter dated 28.03.2018 was received by him for “closing the claim” on account of no response having been received and thus insurer (OP NOs.2 and 3) has absolved itself from its liability/responsibility arising out of claim raised by complainant.Complainant sent representation to various authorities.
7. It is pleaded that: OP No.2 cannot run away from its responsibility for providing claim as accident was due to Act of God and not because of any negligence on the part of Party No.2 to the rent agreement, as clause No.8 of rent agreement only talks about any loss occurred to machine by negligence of party No.2 of rent agreement. Complainant provided each and every document and clarified regarding late intimation, as he had intimated OP No.1 on the day of accident itself, as it is OP No.1 who provided insurance policy to complainant and is running authorised service centre of machine. Machine was once surveyed on spot of accident and its shifting to Faridabad was made only after same was asked by OP No.1. OP No.2 served final reminder dated 21.03.2018 to complainant informing that: if documents were not supplied within 7 days of receipt of letter and insurer would close the file of complainant as ‘No Claim’. It has cleverly absolved itself from liability by serving another letter dated 28.03.2018 and did not wait for reply of complainant. On these pleas;complaint has been filed for issuing directions to Ops to refund him Rs.51,00,000/- with interest @9% till payment; to pay Rs.3,00,000/- lacs towards mental agony and harassment suffered due to unfair trade practice of Ops and to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Text of complaint is supported by complainant’s affidavit.
8. In written version of OP No.1 it is asserted that ‘no relief’ has been claimed against it. Complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and liable to be dismissed under order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Complainant is not a consumer. It is admitted that complainant purchased Hyundai Hydraulic Excavator machine of the value of Rs.51,00,000/- on 07.10.2016, which include price of machine, transportation cost and amount payable to National Insurance Company for facilitating delivery on 07.10.2016. It is admitted that complainant got financing done through HDB Financial Services Limited and whole amount, including margin payment by claimant, was deposited by finance company to OP No.1. Insurance policy was operative from 17.10.2016 to 16.10.2017 and premium of Rs.18,768/- was charged for policy. It is pleaded that due to land slide in mining area of Village Chhapra, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Machine was posed to damage on 22/23.2.2016. It is pleaded that, once OP No.1 has paid insurance premium and insurance policy is directly delivered to purchaser, by insurer, thereafter it is onus of complainant/insured to inform insurer in case of any damage or loss caused to insured, and not to OP No.1.Samewas conveyed by OP No.1 to complainant on receiving his calls and intimation of alleged incident. Any relief sought or settlement of damages/losses incurred by complainant have to be assessed by insurer. After intimation by complainant to OP No.1, spot inspection was carried by its Service Engineer and inspection report dated 24.12.2016 was prepared wherein it was mentioned that machine was burned under earth and other debris and as such damage could not be assessed due to no access to said machine. It is pleaded that role of OP No.1 is very limited. It is responsible for delivery of machine manufactured by Hyundai; it is to accept the payment in regard to price of machine alongwith transportation and insurance cost; to assess damage caused to machine, in order to further submit an estimated amount of damage/loss to it, to be recovered by complainant from insurer. Onus to inform OP No.1, once machine was recovered from debris, was on complainant, who after delay of three months on informing OP No.1, again got machine examined by OP No.1 and an estimate/quotation was prepared on 23.03.2017 assessing total loss/damage to machine at Rs.61,20,473/-.Thereafter, there is no role of OP No.1. and dispute is inter-se between complainant and other OPs. Thus, as per plea complainant should not have joined OP No.1 as party in this complaint. He is attempting to gain maliciously by making OP No. 1 as party. OP No.1 alleged that it suffered harassment and in lieu thereof complainant must compensate it of Rs.2,00,000/- and further compensate it for legal process and fees to the extent of Rs.1.00 lacs. Written version of OP No.1 is testified by affidavit of Ashok Mehndiratta.
9. OP Nos.2 and 3 (Insurer) in their defence, have pleaded that: complaint is defective due to non-joinder of necessary party. Vehicle (Machine) has been financed by HDB financial service limited as it is evident from insurance policy. Payment cannot be made to complainant as amount is due to financer, and financer has already sent letter dated 29.08.2017 to OP No.2. Vehicle (Machine) was given on rent.Rent agreement dated 09.12.2016 was executed with one Aas Mohammad, and as per clause 8 and 10 thereof Aas Mohammad (Party No.2 to rent agreement) is liable to make good the loss. Financer and Aas Mohammad are not made party. It is admitted that insurance policy for the period from 17.10.2016 to 16.10.2017 was issued for Rs.51,00,000/- but it is denied that complainant is entitled for full amount of value of machine. It is pleaded that complainant has not purchased the machine for self-employment to earn his livelihood. He has entered into commercial transaction and this complaint is not maintainable. OP Nos.2 and 3 did not get any intimation of occurrence of loss from any quarter.On 20.01.2017, OPs No.2 and 3 received intimation, over e-mail, through OP No.4 and immediately surveyor was deputed. OP Nos.2 and 3 were not informed of loss and were not involved in inspection of loss and thus insurer deny these contents of complaint, being wrong and false. Vide letter dated 20.03.2017 complainant was asked to explain delay in intimation. Complainant has not specified any date on which he intimated loss to OPs No. 2 & 3 and not annexed any letter intimating loss to OP Nos.2 and 3. Letter dated 29.12.2017 of OP Nos.2 and 3 mentions that: as per clause 7 and 8 of rent agreement between complainant and Aas Mohammad; said Aas Mohammad was solely responsible for any loss due to accident. It is pleaded that there is no liability of OPs No. 2 & 3 to pay any amount, as complainant has violated policy condition about intimation of loss.
10. Letter dated 18.01.2018, for considering claim on non-standard basis by deducting 30% from claim amount is a matter of record, but it is irrelevant, since offer was not accepted by complainant and it lapsed. Letter dated 21.03.2018 of Ops is of no avail to complainant as he did not give any consent to proposal and proposal stand lapsed. As complainant did not gave any reply, the claim was rightly made “No claim” vide letter dated 28.03.2018. It is denied that machine is a total loss to the extent of Rs.61,20,473/-. Machine was got surveyed through ‘Mack Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.” who submitted report dated 11.08.2017 assessing loss of Rs.43,65,462/- as per details given in surveyor report. As per plea of OP Nos. 2 and 3; though no liability is admitted, because of violation of condition No.6, yet if any amount is found payable; same cannot be more than assessed loss of Rs.43,65,462/-. Moreover, there is salvage value of damaged vehicle (machine) which is liable to be deducted and complainant, as per claim form, has himself mentioned the value of salvage as Rs.4,50,000/-.
11. It is pleaded that OP Nos.2 and 3 replied to emails of complainant on 30.01.2017, clarifying that intimation to dealer was not sufficient and binding on insurer and as per condition No.6, complainant should have intimated the loss immediately. It is denied that machine was surveyed at spot of accident. Complainant was required to intimate the loss to OP Nos. 2 and 3 immediately, and removal of machine had to be conducted under supervision of surveyors deputed by OP Nos.2 and 3. As per plea; if complainant can intimate OP No.1 i.e. dealer, there was no reason why he did not intimate loss to OP Nos.2 and 3, when policy was in his hand and he knew contact particulars of OP Nos.2 and 3. Text of written version of OP Nos.2 and 3 is supported by affidavit of its Deputy Manager Deepti Matta.
12. As per order dated 25.03.2019 of this Commission, service of OP No.4 have been ordered to be dispensed with.
13. Parties led evidence. Learned counsel for complainant has filed affidavit Ex. CW1/A of complainant and relied upon documents Ex. C-1 to C-19 towards evidence of complainant and closed the evidence on 14.10.2019. On 17.03.2022, counsel for OP No.1 stated that she did not want to record evidence. Learned counsel for OP Nos.2 and 3 (Insurer) has filed affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of Balwinder Kaur-its Deputy Manager and relied upon documents OP No.1 to OP No.7 as evidence, and closed evidence of OP Nos.2 and 3 on 25.05.2022.
14. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considerable length on 05.01.2024 and with their able assistance; entire record has been perused.
15. Learned counsel for complainant has urged that complainant purchased Hyundai Hydraulic Excavator machine on 07.10.2016 for Rs.51,00,000/- vide invoice Ex.C-1. It was insured with OP Nos.2 and 3 from 17.10.2016 to 16.10.2017 vide EX. C-2. It was purchased for loading/unloading of earth and stone, in process of stone crushing and rented out to one Aas Mohammad vide rent agreement dated 09.12.2016 Ex.C-4 for its proper functioning. In huge land slide of 22/23.12.2016 at crusher zone Bharatpur, at village Chhapra (Rajasthan), machine was buried under earth and debris of stones. OP No.1 was promptly informed about said accident. Spot inspection was conducted on 23.12.2016 itself and as per field service report dated 24.12.2016 machine was under earth debris and could not be inspected. It is urged that Ops No.2 and 3 have taken a false stand that complainant has given late intimation on 20.01.2017 regarding accident/incident. It is urged that as per quotation dated 23.03.2017 prepared by OP No.1; total damage to machine is of Rs.61,20,473/-, which is more than purchase value of machine (Rs.48,11,321/- as per invoice dated 07.10.2016 Ex.C1). Further, it is urged that OP Nos.2 and 3 have wrongly evaded its liability to indemnify the insured, under insurance policy on illegal notions, despite earlier admitting to consider the complainant’s claim on “non-standard basis” by deducting 30% from claim amount. It is urged that even surveyor of OP Nos.2 and 3, through report dated 11.08.2017-Ex.OP4, has assessed loss at Rs.43,65,462/-. Ops have not followed its own surveyor report dated 11.08.2017, by illegally closing complainant’s claim on 28.03.2018.
16. Refuting the contentions; learned counsel for OP Nos.2 and 3 has urged that there is a violation of condition No.6 of insurance policy on the part of insured as intimation of loss was conveyed to insurer on 20.01.2017 through email of OP No.4, whereas alleged mishap took place on 22/23.12.2016. It is urged that any intimation by complainant to OP No.1 cannot be presumed as intimation to OP Nos.2 and 3. It is urged that Field Service Report dated 23.12.2016 Ex.C-6, is not binding on insurer, as surveyor of insurer was not associated during said inspection. It is urged that concession accorded to complainant on 18.01.2018 to settle the claim on “non-standard basis” by deducting 30% of claim amount stood lapsed, as he did not accept said offer. Complainant’s claim was rightly closed as “No claim”. In any case, as per contention, loss assessed by insurer’s surveyor vide its report dated 11.08.2017, is to the tune of Rs.43,65,462/- and complainant is not entitled to anything over and above, this assessed amount and that too by deducting 30%. It is urged that estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.61,20,473/- as per quotation Ex.C-19, is not binding on Ops No.2 and 3. Written arguments have also been placed on record on behalf of OP Nos.2 and 2 on 24.05.2023.
17. On critically analysing the evidence (oral as well as documentary)brought on record and in the light of submissions of both learned counsel for parties so put forward; this Commission is of firm opinion that complainant’s claim deserve to succeed. It is proved that vide invoice dated 07.10.2016 Ex.C-1; complainant had purchased hydraulic excavator machine from OP No.1. Invoice dated 07.10.2016 is of Rs.51,00,000/- which specify the price of machine as Rs.48,11,321/-. It is admitted that OP Nos.2 and 3 have insured this machine with value of Rs.51,00,000/- vide policy Ex. C-2/Ex.OP2, and currency of insurance was from 17.10.2016 to 16.10.2017.
18. As per complainant’s case; this machine suffered extensive damage due to land slide on 22/23.12.2016. Admittedly, as per stance of OP No.1-dealer; it had been intimated of said loss, on same day, and it deputed its Service Engineer to conduct inspection. Nothing material could be elicited during inspection, as Field Service Report dated 24.12.2016 Ex.C-6 recites thatmachine is buried under debris and could not inspected. This report also contains recital of customer-complainant that as and when machine is lifted out from debris, then they will inform Hyundai, to enable them to visit again. There are photographs Ex. C-7 colly showing that machine was infact buried under debris of stone and sand. Consequently, from conjoint reading of the case of complainant and defence put up by OP No.1 (dealer) and in the light of Field Service Report dated 24.12.2016 Ex.C6, it is established that machine, infact suffered loss of intense magnitude and gravity due to land slide incident of 22/23.12.2016, and OP No.1-dealer was promptly put in knowledge of this fact. It would be apt to mention here itself that as per quotation of estimated loss Ex. C-19; the loss/damage to the machine is to tune of Rs. 61,20,473/- which is undoubtedly more than the insured value i.e. Rs.51,00,000/- as per insurance policy Ex.C-2/Ex.OP2. Claimant in his present complaint has prayed for decretal of his claim, of the amount of Rs.51,00,000/- with interest in principal, alongwith other allied reliefs.
19. To pursue his above principal claim, and since OP Nos.2 and 3 are the insurers;so complainant knocked their door. Ops No.2 and 3 have adopted an express stand that they have been belatedly intimated for the loss, on 20.01.2017 through email of OP No.4- SMS Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., and they immediately appointed a surveyor. To deny liability; OP No.2 and 3 have taken a stand of violation of condition No.6 of insurance policyEx.OP-2, which talks about requirement of immediate intimation to it by insured as to nature and extent of loss or damage, obviously due to mishap/accident/incident. Surveyor of the OPs (Mack Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.) gave report dated 11.08.2017 Ex.OP No.4.It is a detailed comprehensive report, vide which surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.43,65,462/-. Significantly, OP Nos.2 and 3 (Insurers) in their defence have pleaded, while replying to prayer clause in complainant that: if any amount is found payable by this Commission, same cannot be more than assessed loss of Rs.43,65,462/-. Meaning thereby, OP Nos.2 and 3, have,in unambiguous manner admitted their liability to the extent of amount (Rs.43,65,462/-) as assessed by its surveyor. At legal pedestal, surveyor report of insurer carries enough evidentiary value. Of course, it is subject to rebuttal, but in present case, there is no evidence, worth the name, led by complainant in order to rebut said report of surveyor dated 11.08.2017 Ex. OP-4 in order to justify his claim of insured value. While observing so, on above mentioned legal adage; this Commission derives strength on judgments in cases viz. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others Vs. M/s Mudit Roadways, Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2023 decided on 24.11.2023 (2023 INSC 1022) and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.Pardeep Kumar 2009 (7) SCC 787. Consequently OP Nos.2 and 3 (insurer) cannot wriggle out from the legal import and consequences flowing from its own surveyor’s report dated 11.08.2017 Ex. OP-4, so far as its financial liability towards insured is concerned to the tune of Rs.43,65,462/-.
20. The stand of the OP Nos.2 and 3 that it has rightly closed the claim case of complainant on 28.03.2018 does not stand the test of credibility. Reason in this regard is obvious. Mishap to machine took place on 22/23.12.2016 and insurer (OP No. 2 & 3) have been conveyed of this fact by its own broker (OP No.4) through email dated 20.01.2017. Intervening period of about 27 days cannot be taken as too abnormal and unreasonable delayed period in order to abruptly close the complainant’s case by invoking condition No.6 of insurance policy Ex. C-2. This is particularly when, clause 6 does specify expressly the time period of 14 days of intimation. Meaning thereby, in strict legal sense, there is delay of only 13 days on the part of insured to intimate insurer. It only mentions word ‘immediately’. Word immediately,must be interpreted with elastic sense to include within its ambit a delayed period of 13 days, so far as intimation to insurers(OP No. 2 & 3) is concerned, about loss.
21. Legal position regarding rejection/repudiation of genuine claim on ground of delayed intimation is no more res-integra. By now, it is well settled through catena of judgments that: repudiation of claim on the ground of delayed intimation is not justified. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment dated 11.02.2022 of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.1069 of 2022 titled as Jaina Construction Company Ltd. Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.and on case titled as Trilok Singh versus Manager, Cholamndalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal No. 4530 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24923 of 2018) decided on 18.07.2023.Although, these cases pertain to theft, yet ratio laid down is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence OPs Nos.2 and 3 should not have close the claim case of complainant, by unjustly invoking clause No.6 of insurance policy.
22. Of course, as per admitted stand of complainant, he has rented out the machine one Sh.Ash Mohammad. Rent Agreement dated 09.12.2016 is Ex.C-4. Stance of OP Nos.2 and 3 is that: complainant has ceased to be ‘consumer’ as he has not used the machine for earning his livelihood, but used the same for commercial purpose. Even this plea of insurer is not tenable. Rent agreement Ex.C-4 is on record. It is for the period of 11 months and Excavator Machine has been given on rent @900 rupees, per hour, for minimum eight hours of a day, as it is so apparent from plain reading of clause-2 of rent agreement Ex.C-4.Thus, from glance at rent agreement, it is clear that complainant has let out the machine to Aas Mohammad to earn his own livelihood. No commercial element and dominant purpose of profit motive is visible from reading rent agreement Ex. C-4. Consequently, in terms of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case settled as Rohit Chaudhary and another Vs. M/s Vipul Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754; complainant is a consumer. The nature of working/functioning of machine is such that it cannot possibly remain confined and stationary at one place. It has to move around, here and there. Wheresoever it will move, the insurance policy would naturally travel alongwith it.
23. Vide letters dated 18.01.2018-Ex.C-14 (Date wrongly mentioned as 18.01.2017) and dated 31.03.2018-Ex.C-15; insurer has expressed its intention to settle complainant’s claim on ‘Non-Standard Basis’ by deducting 30% from claim amount. Identical is the contention raised before this Commission. As per subjective discussion of all relevant facets of this case; it is deciphered that there is no fallacy on the part of complainant/insured, even remotely. So, condition put forward to insured through letters Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 to give his consent to insurer (OPs No. 2 & 3) to deduction of 30% of claim amount, for settlement of case on ‘Non-Standard Basis’ is prejudicial to insured’s interest. Rather, such a condition is totally unreasonable and not sustainable. Argument of learned counsel for OPs No. 2 & 3, thus stood repelled. Collectively, unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No. 2 & 3 is ex-facie established.
24. As already observed above, insurer has limited its liability to the extent of Rs.43,65,462/-, on the foundation of its own surveyor report dated 11.08.2017 Ex.OP-4. Since,as per this Commission’sfinding recorded herein above; that insurer cannot take shelter of condition of No.6 of insurance policy, or on the alleged fact that machine has been rented out and changed site of its location, therefore it cannot not put forward any onerous condition before insured to settle claim amount with deduction of 30% from it, on non-standard basis. In firm opinion of this Commission; (Insurer’s-OP Nos.2 and 3) liability to indemnify the insured/complainant is fixed at Rs.43,65,462/- as per its surveyor’s report Ex. OP-4 dated 11.08.2017. Needless to say that insurer would satisfy this liability qua insured/complainant, with interest @9% per annum from date of filing of this complaint, till actual realisation. Further,it is held that insurer (OP Nos.2 and 3) would, at first, satisfy the charge/outstanding liability of M/s HBD Financial Service which has admitted financed the Excavator Machine, and said financer has already lodged its claim with insurer through its letter dated 29.08.2017 addressed to OP No.2 (Para No.1 of preliminary objection of written statement filed by OP Nos.2 and 3). After satisfying the liability of financer to the extent of loan amount; the residue amount with interest @9% p.a., if any, would be disbursed to complainant by OP Nos.2 and 3. In addition, complainant is awarded Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and also awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation for undue harassment suffered by him at the behest of OPs No. 2 & 3. Both these awarded amounts awarded towards litigation expenses and towards compensation are to be paid by OP Nos.2 and 3, directly to him (complainant). All these directions contained in this paragraph, be complied by OPs No. 2 & 3, in latter and spirit, within period of two months from today. Else, the complainant is at liberty to adopt appropriate legal recourse. With above observation, this complaint stands disposed of being, partly allowed.
25. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
26. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
27. File be consigned to record room.
Date of Pronouncement: 15th February, 2024
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-III
S.K.(Pvt. Secy.)
