State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Agro Hardware Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 9 May, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017
Date of Institution : 10.07.2017
Date of Reserve : 27.04.2018
Date of Decision : 09.05.2018
M/s Agro Hardware Industries (P) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Gumtala,
District Amritsar.
....Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Amritsar Road, Opp. SSP Office,
Tarn Taran, through its Branch Manager.
....Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the ground Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 2 that the complainant Company had taken burglary floater policy from the Op insuring their stocks to the tune of Rs. 5,01,00,000/-, covering their building as well as plant and machinery vide policy No. 200305/46/13/53/00000062 for the period 8.1.2014 till 7.1.2015 issued on 8.1.2014. Mrs. Kavita Amarjit Singh Kukreja, Director of the Company in routine checking of the stock lying in the yard of the factory, found the goods worth Rs. 20,60,000/- stolen from the factory premises. Its details are as under:-
Sr. Item Description Unit Qty. (Kg.) Amount (Rs.) No. 1 DDL Mould Set 1 20,000/-
2 DDL Mould Set 1 2,40,000/-
3 DDL Mould Set 1 1,05,000/-
4 DDL Mould Set 1 30,000/-
5 Wudfin Mould Set 1 35,000/-
6 Wudfin Mould Set 1 1,20,000/-
7 Holtite Mould Set 1 45,000/-
8 Holtite Mould Set 1 75,000/-
9 Leak Guard Mould Set 1 35,000/-
10 Leak Guard Mould Set 1 80,000/-
11 Leak Guard Mould Set 1 50,000/-
12 Leak Guard Mould Set 1 75,000/-
13 Jerry Can Mould Set 1 70,000/-
14 Mould Base Set 1 50,000/-
15 Jerry Can Mould Set 1 2,50,000/-
16 Agriculture Spray Pump Parts Kg. 7,80,000/-
TOTAL VALUE 20,60,000/-
The loss was noticed on 17.10.2014 and it was immediately reported to the Police on the same day and FIR No. 291 dated 17.10.2014 under Sections 457/380 IPC was got registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar. The Police investigated the matter and found that one Sukhbir Sansi @ Kala son of Tarsem Singh, resident of Village Heir, Raja Sansi, Amritsar working as Gate Keeper of the factory was on duty at the Gate of the factory in the night of 16.10.2014. When power supply was not there, he saw 4-5 men outside gate of the factory. When he opened the gate and was Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 3 coming out to see them, they pushed him as a result of that he fell down and became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he saw the main gate of factory opened and did not inform the episode to anybody. His statement was recorded before the Police on 29.1.2015 under Sections 161 Cr. P.C. The complainant lodged the claim with the Op vide letter dated 20.10.2014. The Police Authorities issued untraced report dated 15.5.2015 and 25.5.2015.
However, the Op repudiated the claim of the complainant Company on the following grounds:-
(i) There was no specific date of loss/theft available.
(ii) All locks were found intact.
(iii) There was no evidence of forcible entry/ exit in/ from the premises.
The reasons for repudiation of the claim are completely flimsy, erroneous and frivolous in nature because the repudiation has been done without appreciating the material evidence available with the Op. The Op got the matter investigated from Protocol Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. and they specifically mentioned in Clause 6.1 that the loss was noticed on 17.10.2014 and the insured intimated the loss to the underwriters on 20.10.2014. In view of the evidence on the record, it does not lie in the mouth of the insurer to say that the claim does not have any specific date of loss/theft. With regard to objections "all locks are found intact and no evidence of forcible entry/exit or loss was discovered", the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the terms of the policy, the insurer is Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 4 liable to indemnify the insured for burglary (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry into and/or exit from the premises". In case we go through the totality of the circumstances, the case of burglary is made out. As per the statement of gate keeper dated 29.1.2015 recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. it corroborates the violent entry of the miscreants, who allegedly committed the burglary. Alleging deficiency in services on the part of Op in repudiating the claim of Rs. 20,60,000/-, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking direction against the Op to pay the claim of Rs. 20,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 5 Lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 75,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Op appeared and filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not disclosed the true and material facts, therefore, the complaint be dismissed being malafide; the loss under questions does not come within the scope of the insurance policy, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. The complainant Company had purchased burglary floater policy for sum insured of Rs. 5,01,00,000/- on stocks of plastic grannuels and/or plastic buckets and/or dyes and colour and/or other goods pertaining to insured trade, whilst stored and/or lying in village Gumtala and village Murdapura, District Amritsar. On the basis of FIR got registered by the complainant, intimation was given to the Op. Op had deputed Protocol Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors, who in their final report dated 28.7.2015 noted that no specific date of loss/theft is available and Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 5 all locks were found intact and there is no evidence of forcible entry/exit in/from the insured premises, therefore, the insurance company repudiated the insurance claim under Clause a(i) of the insurance policy; the complainant does not come under the definition of the consumer; complaint is bad for non-joinder of party i.e. the banker of the complainant; the insured amount is Rs. 5 Crore, therefore, the claim does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission; the complaint involves disputed and complicated questions of law and facts, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court and that the complaint is barred by limitation and no application under Section 24A of the Act has been filed alongwith the complaint therefore, the compliant is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. In parawise reply, policy for the period 8.1.2014 upto 7.1.2015 for sum insured of Rs. 5,01,00,000/- is a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that the complainant reported the loss of Rs. 20,60,000/-. FIR was got recorded as per statement of Mrs. Kavita, one of the Director of the complainant Company. The matter was reported to the Op, they referred the matter to the Surveyor Protocol Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. In the FIR, statement of one Sukhbir Singh under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was also recorded. The cancellation/untraced report has been accepted by the Court but the claim of the complainant was not falling within the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated by the Op. There is no merit in the complaint, it be dismissed. Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 6
3. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of their complaint. Complainant in its evidence has tendered affidavit of Manprret Singh, Director as Ex. C/A and documents Ex. C-1 to C-11. On the other hand, Op has tendered the affidavit of Shama Arora Mittal, Asstt. Manager as Ex. OP-A and affidavit of Shiv Kumar Aggarwal, Surveyor as Exs. Op-B and document Ex. Op-1.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents on the record.
5. It has been stated that the complainant is a large scale commercial company, therefore, the complainant is not covered under the definition of 'consumer'. This fact has been discussed by the Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment "M/s Harsolia Motors versus M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.", 2004 SCC Online NCDRC 11 wherein after discussing the definition of the 'consumer' and 'service' under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Act, the Hon'ble National Commission came to the opinion that the contract is one of indemnity, therefore, insured can recover the actual amount of loss and no more. Therefore, no element of earning any profit, therefore, the complainant is covered under the definition of 'consumer'. This fact has not been repelled by the counsel for the Op by referring any judgment to the contrary.
6. It has been stated that the bank has not been impleaded as a party to the complaint, therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the claim of the Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 7 complainant is only against the Insurance Company, who had issued the insurance policy and repudiated the claim, therefore, the banker does not come within the picture. During the course of arguments, counsel for the Op was unable to convince before this Commission, how the Banker is a necessary party in this case.
7. Another plea has been taken that the insurance policy is worth Rs. 5 Crores, therefore, it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. However, the claim is not to be taken as per the amount of the insurance policy but the claim is of loss suffered by the complainant, therefore, the claim of the complainant is to be considered for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No. 2028 of 2017 decided on 13.2.2018 'M/s Shree Shyam Poultry Versus United India Ins. Co.", observed that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, sum claimed and insurance premium are to be added. In case these two amounts are added, certainly, the amount does not exceed Rs. 1 Crore and it is more than Rs. 20 Lacs, therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the Op that the claim of the complainant is not covered within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
8. It has been alleged that the complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary procedure, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court. As per the pleadings of the parties, the complainant had purchased insurance policy and theft/burglary has been committed in the insured premises and the Company claimed Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 8 the loss amount from the Insurance Company, therefore, it is only the claim of the loss suffered as per the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the policy and such type of complaints are being handled by the Consumer Fora. The Presiding Officers of the Benches in the State Commission are retired High Court Judges or retired District Judges, therefore, they are fully competent to decide such type of matters. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dr. J.J. Merchant and others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi", 2002(6) SCC 635 in which it was observed that 'the State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired High Court Judges and officers of District Judge level and in our view, this is not such a case which cannot be decided by the 'Consumer Fora' after obtaining evidence and if need be after getting an expert opinion'. Further it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in "Shiv Kumar Agarwal versus Arun Tandon and another", 2007(2) CLT 287. In that case a plea that case involves complicated questions of fact and law and will need expert evidence, which is not possible in the summary proceedings adopted by the Consumer Fora repelled. Consumer Forum which is headed by Senior Judicial Officers, are capable of dealing with even complex questions. When both the parties have completed their evidence then it is not proper to relegate the matter to the Civil Court and the District Forum should have decided the matter. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea of the Ops that the matter in dispute cannot Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 9 be decided before the Consumer Fora or that it should be relegated to the Civil Court.
9. No doubt that the loss was reported on 17.10.2014 but the cause of action arose to the complainant when they repudiated the claim. The claim was repudiated by the Op vide their letter dated 14.9.2015 Ex. C-8 and the complaint was filed as on 10.7.2017 within a period of 2 years, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation.
10. As per the pleadings on record, the complainant had taken burglary floater policy covering his stock to the tune of Rs. 5,01,00,000/- for the period 8.1.2014 to 7.1.2015 vide policy No. 200305/46/13/53/00000062. On 17.10.2014, when the stock of the firm was taken up, there was loss of Rs. 20,60,000/- and in this regard, FIR was got registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar vide FIR No. 291 dated 17.10.2014 under Sections 457/380 IPC. Lateron during the investigation of the case, it was revealed by Sukhbir Singh @ Kala s/o Tarsem Singh r/o Heir, Raja Sansi, Amritsar, who was working as a gatekeeper that on the night of 16.10.2014, there was no power supply and he say 4-5 men outside the gate of the factory. When he opened the gate to see, they pushed him as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. So far as the FIR is concerned, untraced report has been submitted by the Police, the same is Ex. C-7. The Ops were also intimated about the occurrence and they have appointed Protocol Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. Ex. C-8 Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 10 and in their opinion, no specific date i.e. date of loss/theft is available and all the locks were found intact, therefore, no evidence of forcible entry/exist in/from the insured premises and the loss was discovered during inventory taken on 17.10.2014. This Op in their email dated 1.9.2017 Ex. C-10 (colly) has referred that they are of the opinion that no loss due to burglary/house-breaking has occurred in the insured premises. The loss is most probably theft or misplacement / error in stock keeping records and not covered under the policy. Therefore, main objection taken by the counsel for the Op is that it is not a burglary and covered under the policy terms and conditions. With regard to burglary, the counsel for the Op has referred to the judgment IV (2016) CPJ 11 (SC) "Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr." In that judgment, they have relied upon the judgment "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal", IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) wherein the scope of the policy involving burglary and house breaking was considered as follows:-
"The policy is a contract between the parties and both parties are bound by the terms of contract. As per the definition of the word "burglary", followed with violence, makes it clear that if any theft is committed it should necessarily be preceded with violence i.e. entry into the premises for committing theft should involve force or violence or threat to insurer or to his employees or to the members of his family. Therefore, the element of force and violence is a condition precedent for burglary and housebreaking. The term 'burglary' as defined in the English Dictionary means an illegal entry into the building with an intent Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 11 to commit crime such as theft. But in absence of violence or force the insurer cannot claim indemnification against the insurance company. The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended. It is true that in common parlance the term "burglary" would mean theft but it has to be preceded with force or violence. If the element of force and violence is not present then the insurer cannot claim compensation against theft from the insurance company. This expression appearing in the insurance policy came up for interpretation before the English Courts and the English Courts in no uncertain terms laid down that burglary or theft has to be preceded with force or violence in order to be indemnified by the insurance company. In this connection reference may be made to the statement of law as summarized in Halsbury's Laws of England Fourth Edition (2003 Reissue) Para
646. It reads as under:
"646. Forcible and violent entry. The terms of a burglary insurance may exclude liability in certain circumstances unless there is forcible and violent entry into the premises. If so, the entry must be obtained by the use of both force and violence or the definition is not satisfied and the policy does not apply. An entry obtained by turning the handle of an outside door or by using a skeleton key, though sufficient to constitute a criminal offence, is not within the policy since the element of violence is absent. However, an entry obtained by picking the lock or forcing back the catch by means of an instrument involves the use of violence and is therefore covered. The policy may be so framed as to apply only to violent entry from the outside; or the violent entry into a room within the insured premises may be sufficient. In any case, the violence must be Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 12 connected with the act of entry; if the entry is obtained without violence, the subsequent use of violence to effect the theft, as for instance where a show-case is broken open, does not bring the loss within the policy.""
In case we go through these observations, forcible and violent entry into the premises is must to cover the incident under the definition of burglary. Whereas counsel for the complainant has referred to the 'Black's Law Dictionary' wherein the word forcible has been explained as under:-
"[In the law of trespass, the] term 'forcible' is used in a wide and somewhat unnatural sense to include any act of physical interference with the person or property of another. To lay one's finger on another person without lawful justification is as much a forcible injury in the eye of the law, and therefore a trespass, as to beat him with a stick. To walk peacefully across another man's land is a forcible injury and a trespass, no less than to break into his house vi et armis. So also it is probably a trespass deliberately to put matter where natural forces will take it on to the plaintiff's land."
and forcible entry has been referred as under;-
"1. The act or an instance of violently and unlawfully taking possession of lands and tenements against the will of those in lawful possession.
2. The act of entering land in another's possession by the use of force against another or by breaking into the premises."Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 13
In case we go through these definitions, forcible entry means entry into the land of another's possession by the use of force. The counsel for the complainant has further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission 2001(2) CPJ 26 "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Public Type College" wherein it was observed that as per Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Edition), burglary is defined as "illegal entry into a building with intent to commit a crime such as theft" and Long Man Dictionary of Contemporary English, burglary is a "crime of entering a building by force with the intention of stealing" and in New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, burglary is "the crime of breaking into the house of another at night with felonious intent, sometimes extended by statute to cover the breaking and entering of any of various buildings by night or day". In that judgment, a reference has been given to the judgment "Dino Services Ltd. v. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd." (1989) 1 All.ER 422 (CA). In that case, the goods were stolen from the premises of the insured by thieves, who had stolen the keys to the premises from the insurer's car and then entered into the premises at night by simply using the keys in the normal way to unlock various doors, without causing any physical damage to the locks or to the doors. The insured repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss or damage had to occasion from theft involving "forcible and violent" means. It was observed that opening of the doors with stolen keys constituted forcible entry. In this context, in case we take the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of Sukhbir Singh @ Kala s/o Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 14 Tarsem Singh r/o Heir, Raja Sansi, Amritsar was recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. It has been recorded by the Police Official in the discharge of his official duties and in case we go through this statement, it has been stated that on 16.10.2014 during the night time when light was not there, 4-5 persons were seen by them near the gate and when he opened to check them, they pushed him, as a result of which, he fell down and became unconscious. When he gained consciousness, the gate was open. Under the fear, he did not come forward for so many days. This statement was made on 16.1.2015 and the Surveyor report is dated 28.7.2015, after quite a long period from this statement and in his report Ex. Op-1, it has been referred that FIR No. 291 dated 17.10.2014 under Section 457/380 IPC was registered in P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar and in this regard some newspaper cuttings have also been referred, which was published on 19.10.2014 with regard to the occurrence happened in the factory premises of the complainant. He has not discussed the statement of Sukhbir Singh @ Kala to say whether it is covered under the definition of burglary or the theft as observed by the Op in their email. Even in the written reply or in the evidence, they have not denied that the statement of Sukhbir Singh is not a correct statement. It has not been denied that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 16.10.2014, Sukhbir Singh was not in employment of the complainant. In case we take into consideration the statement of Sukhbir Singh then the entry of unidentified persons in the factory premises by violent means because they pushed the gate keeper and after that occurrence Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 15 took place. So far as breaking, open of the locks is concerned, we cannot say whether the premises from where the theft took place was under locks or keys? Whether the keys were with the gate keeper? In case the keys were with the gate keeper then every possibility that they took the keys from there and they took away the articles from there. Therefore, from the overall analysis of the facts and circumstances and evidence brought on the record by the parties, we are of the opinion that the entry of unidentified persons, who committed the alleged theft was committed with forcible entry. It is also not the case of the Surveyor of the Op that the loss has not been occurred or it was manipulated by the complainant, just to get the claim. With regard to specific date as mentioned by the Op, again these are wrong observations. The FIR was got registered on 17.10.2014 and after recording the statement of Sukhbir Singh, it is clear that the occurrence took place on 16.10.2014. It is not necessary that everything must be recorded in the FIR. FIR is not an encyclopedia, it is just a starting point of investigation and when we are to take stock of the entire evidence then we are to see it whether it is a case covered under the theft or the burglary. As stated above, on the basis of statement of Sukhbir Singh, who was gate keeper in the factory premises of the complainant, where the occurrence took place, the entry was forcible one, therefore, we are of the opinion that the incident occurred in the factory premises of the complainant is burglary and is duly covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.
Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 16
11. As per the claim, the complainant has lodged the claim of Rs. 20.60 lacs. The Surveyor in his report has stated that Item No. 1 to 12 belongs to M/s Pidilite, therefore, claim against these articles is not covered. In case we go through the policy coverage, the policy document is Ex. C-2 and the article coverage is as under:-
"Rs. 5,01,00,000/- on stocks of plastic grannuels &/or plastic buckets &/or plastic containers, spray pumps &/or raw material of all kinds &/or dyes & colour &/or other goods pertaining to insured trade, whilst stored &/or lying. In case we go through the articles covered, it includes other goods pertaining to the insured trade, whilst, stored &/or lying at below mentioned addresses:-
(1) "Vill. Gumtala, Loharka Road Moor, Amritsar (2) Vill.
Muradpura, Loharrka Road Moor Amritsar."
A reference has been made to another judgment 2011 SCC OnLine NCDRC 26 "The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus M/s P.G. Clothing Rep. by its Proprietor" wherein plea was taken by the Insurance Company that "goods held in trust" as two separate categories, are meaningless under the policy. In that case also, the stock belonging to the other owner, namely, V.V.R. Apparels and Unitex Fashion were in the unit of the complainant to perform the job work and it was held by the Commission that the insurer would be answerable for the goods of these two owners, destroyed in the premises of the complainant. No contrary judgment has been cited by the counsel for the Op, therefore, Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 17 goods at serial No. 1 to 12 were taken from the firm Pidilite but at the time of alleged occurrence these were in the premises of the complainant in connection with the insured rid, therefore, the cost of these goods cannot be excluded.
12. The insured has further stated that the insured had not provided the purchase details/break up of stock at item Nos. 13 to
15. In case it was so then the Ops have not placed on the record any data or email written by the Surveyor to the complainant to provide the purchase detail of items at serial Nos. 13 to 15. Even the insurer after receiving the surveyor report has not written any letter to the insured to provide purchase details of these items. Otherwise the complainant has stated in the complaint that items at serial Nos. 13 and 15 are made in house and that item at serial No. 14 are purchased from outside and the entire information was provided to Op from time to time. In this regard a letter was written by the complainant to the insured/surveyor on 26.10.2014 and the documents i.e. invoice of Sachdeva Industries, Supreme Die Works and Goodwill Agrotech was sent to the Surveyor alongwith the documents. Therefore, in case these documents were supplied to the Surveyor then he cannot say so that the record of these purchases or manufactured in the factory premises were provided to him. The assessment of the remaining items was made by the Surveyor and he has assessed it to the tune of Rs. 7,03,482/-.
13. What is the value of the report of the Surveyor. In this regard, a reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2011(7) RCR (Civil) 395 "New India Assurance Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 18 Company Limited versus Pradeep Kumar" wherein it has been referred that although the assessment of the loss by the approved Surveyor is pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim but Surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from. It is not conclusive. The approved Surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of the claim by the insurer but surely such a report is not binding upon the insurer or the insured.
14. In view of reasons stated above, it was not justified on the part of the Surveyor to decline the cost of Item Nos. 1 to 15 without any convincing reasons, therefore, such a report declining the claim of Item No. 1 to 15 cannot be accepted as recommended by the Surveyor. The loss is there, which has not been denied either by the Surveyor or by Op and the main objection of the Op is that it is not covered under the term burglary but it is only a theft. However, in this regard, we have already given the findings that it is covered under the term 'burglary' and that the claim is payable, which was wrongly repudiated by the Op.
15. No other point was argued.
16. Sequel to the above, we accept the complaint and direct the Ops as under:-
(i) to pay a sum of Rs. 20,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 14.9.2015 till the date of payment.
(ii) pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
(iii) pay Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No. 541 of 2017 19
The above directions be complied by the Op within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Op.
17. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
18. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER May 09, 2018.
as