State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashoke Chatterjee Since Deceased On ... vs Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co. ... on 10 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/149/2019
ASHOKE CHATTERJEE SINCE DECEASED ON 04042024
PRESENT ADDRESS - PASCHIM BARDHAMAN,WEST BENGAL.
SIKHA CHATTERJEE W/O LATE ASHOKE CHATTERJEE
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O LT. SAKTI PADA CHATTERJEE MADHYA PARA VILL. P.O.
GOPALPUR, P.S. KANKSA, DIST PASCHIM BURDWAN, DURGAPUR. PIN 713212. , PASCHIM
BARDHAMAN,WEST BENGAL.
ISHITA CHATTERJEE D/O LATE ASHOKE CHATTERJEE
PRESENT ADDRESS - ARGORI, LICHUBAGAN, SANKRAIL,HOWRAH711302PASCHIM
BARDHAMAN,WEST BENGAL.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
PRESENT ADDRESS - Unit no. 1A & 2A, Raheja Tipco Plaza, Rani Sati Marg, Malad(E), Mumbai
- 400 097.,WEST BENGAL.
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - Durgapur - 713 216, Burdwan.,WEST BENGAL.
The Br. Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - Durgapur - 713 216, Burdwan.,WEST BENGAL.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
ASHOKE CHATTERJEE SINCE DECEASED ON 04042024Mr. Arijit Dey (Advocate)
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Ms. Sumita Roy Chowdhury. (Advocate)
DATED: 10/03/2026
ORDER
Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member The instant Complaint has been filed by the complainant no. 1, since deceased under Section 17(1)(a)(i) (wrongly written as Section 12 of C.P Act), 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OPs. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the instant complaint has been filed by erstwhile Complainant Mr. Ashoke Chatterjee. During pendency of the instant complaint case said Ashoke Chatterjee expired and the names of the legal heirs of the deceased complainant being the wife of Ashoke Chatterjee and the daughter of Ashoke Chatterjee have been impleaded as complainant No.2 and complainant No.3 in the instant complaint by filing amended petition of complaint. It has been stated in the petition of complainant that Shri. Arup Dutta, an agent of the Opposite Parties approached the complainant No. 1and enticed for making some single premium policies. As a result the complainant No. 1 had 89 policies in his name and 2 more policies were made on the life of his daughter namely Ishita Chatterje. At the time of making the policies the agent of the OP Company asked him to sign at various pages of the application forms, which he did. The application forms were filled in by the said agent. The Complainant No. 1 paid Rs. 34,00,000 on various dates. Subsequently, the complainant No.1 came to know that the mobile number provided in the Bonds was not the mobile number of the Ashoke Chatterjee but that of the agent of the OP Company. The mobile number provided in the Bonds was 9002286188 whereas the mobile number of the deceased Complainant was 9732051704. The Complainant No. 1 was never contacted by the OP Company as to whether he was interested with the policies. Dissatisfied with the policies the Complainant No. 1 had made various communications with the OP Company. He had served an advocate-notice dated 12.12.2011 served on the Durgapur Branch against policy no. APP-LL40600171 of the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs only. As a result of which the Respondent Company had returned the said amount to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has approached the office of the OP Company several times and written to them on a number of occasions for cancelling the remaining policies and return of the balance amount but the same have yielded no result. Then the Complainant No. 1 had approached the office of the Insurance Ombudsman by way of a complaint against the OP Company. However, vide communication bearing no. 1326/20/004/L/3/10-11 dated 06.05.2011 informed the Complainant No. 1 that the complaint was not admitted at the relevant point of time because the premiums of Rs. 33 lakh was beyond the limit of the forum under the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998. Then, the Complainant No. 1 tried to settle the matter with the OP Company but it was a futile exercise. Under these circumstances the Complainant No. 1 sent a demand justice notice dated 23.02.2017 served through their Ld. Lawyer demanding cancellation of the remaining policies of the complainant and to return him the balance amount at an early date. However, the demand of the Complainant No. 1 was rejected by the OP Company which was initiated by its communication dated 29.03.2017. Thereafter, the Complainant No. 1 through his Ld. Advocate's letter dated 29.01.2018 requested the OPs to refund the balance amount after cancelling the remaining policies. The same was acknowledged vide their communication dated 14.03.2018. But the OP Company ultimately refund the claim of the Complainant No. 1 vide communication dated 17.04.2018 by alleging that the policy no. 14589914 was surrendered by the Complainant No. 1 on 08.11.2017 and thereafter the company duly processed the surrendered request and directly transferred an of Rs. 5,94,862.20/- to his account. Then the Complainant no. 1 sent another legal notice dated 03.06.2018 to the OP Company requesting the OPs to return the balance amount to redress the grievance of the complainant no. 1 vide its communication dated 24.07.2018. The complainant No. 1 was constrained to believe that he would not get any justice and / or relief form the OPs. The refusal of the OPs to cancel the remaining policies and to return him the balance amount is illegal, palpably wrongful and arbitrary since the OPs intentionally did not provide the service to the complainant for which the payment was made. Hence there is negligence, malpractice and deficiency in service. The cause of action of the instant case arose on 24.07.2018 when the OP Company refuse to refund back the amount paid to them and it arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The value of the demand is also more than Rs. 20,00,000/-
Hence the application praying for cancelling the remaining policies and return the balance amount of Rs. 25,00,000 to the Complainants along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainants. The Complainant has also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of making payment till the refund along with litigation cost of Rs. 50,000 and to pass such further order or orders as this commission may deem fit and proper.
All the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the case by filing the written version.
In their written version OPs firstly stated that the case is barred by limitation as per Section 24-A of C.P Act, 1986. The Ops have stated that the Complainant No. 1 disputed the sale of 89 policies under question. Hence the cause of action, if any, arose on the dates the subject policies were issued. The said policies were issued between 21.10.2010 to 25.10.2011. Therefore, cause of action for filing the complaint if any, arose in January 2011 itself. The complaint made by the complainant No. 1 before the Ombudsman, Kolkata was closed on 06.05.2011. But the instant complaint has been filed beyond the limitation period. The OPs also stated in their w/v that on mere perusal of complaint it is apparent that all allegations of miss-selling were against one Shri Arup Dutta. However, said Arup Dutta is not made party to the present complaint. Only Arup Dutta can defend the allegation of miss-selling against him, with his personal knowledge. On a plain reading of the legal notice sent by the erstwhile complainant makes it clear that it is a clear cut case of criminal breach trust and forgery against Mr. Arup Dutta. But the complainant has not filed any criminal proceeding against him. The OPs have requested the complainant no.1 to initiate a suitable legal action against Mr. Arup Dutta which is annexed at Paragraph 19 to 22 issued by the OPs on 03.05.2012. The allegation of filling up the forms by the agent cannot be taken in to consideration because who has signed the document he is responsible for the filled in forms. It is well settled principle of law that the person who fills up anything on a signed document has the status of 'amanuensis' only and cannot be treated as author of the document. Moreover, the allegation made in the complaint are not simple but complicated in nature which requires a proper trial by examining and cross-examining witnesses. It involves complicated questions of facts and law which cannot be vested under summary trial. It requires voluminous evidence to be laid therefore this Commission is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate upon present complaint. Therefore, said Arup Dutta is a necessary party to the complaint. Moreover, the aggregated value of the service involved in the present deposits beyond Rs. 1crore. The complainant No. 1 availed the service of insurance from the company for a total amount of Rs.2,1,00,000 as insured amount under the disputed policies. Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter. And the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
At the time of final hearing Ld. Counsel for the present Complainants has stated that originally the complaint was filed by Ashoke Chatterjee the husband of the Complainant No. 2 and the father of the Complainant No.
3. The present Complainants are not aware of all the policies purchased by the deceased Complainant No. 1. The Complainant no. 1 made a payment of Rs. 34,00,000/- on various dates. It was informed to the complainant No. 1 by the agent of the OPs that all the policies were of single premium policy. The Ld. Counsel for the complainants argued that the allegation of the OPs that the said agent is not made as party in the complaint case but the agent is liable for the act of the principal. Rs.4,00,000/- was only returned by the OPs against the policy No. AP- LL40600171. The Complainant No. 1 tried to settle the matter on various occasions by visiting the office of the OPs. The OPs only informed that only Policy No. 14589914 was surrendered by the Complainant no. 1 vide their letter dated 08.11.2017. Thereafter, the company duly processed the request of the Complainant No.1 and transfer the amount of Rs. 5,94,862.20 to his account. There is no explanation on behalf of the OPs why no amount was returned in respect of the other policies. The OPs have harassed by nature with an intention to mislead this LD. Commission they have intentionally harassed the complainant through their jugglery of words and fail to compensate properly. The Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 25,00,000 for the other policies in question along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with compensation and cost for prolonged harassment and sufferings by deceased Complainants No. 1 and the present Complainant also. Being the bonafide consumers the present Complainant are entitled for their prayer as prayed in the petition of complaint.
In course of the hearing Ld. Counsel for the OPs submitted that the allegation of the Complainants that the form was filled up by the agent is not true when the Complainant No. 1 signed on the proposal form he is liable for any data filled in the form. In the petition of Complaint the Complainant No. 1 has stated he was not served with the policy upon but in the Running page No. 9, Annexure A the Complainant No. 1 annexed the letter where in the first paragraph of the latter dated 25.07.2011 he acknowledged that when he opened the policy it seemed to him that all policies are of in regular premium payment.
The Ld. Counsel for the OPs further submitted that the allegation of payment of Rs. 34,00,000 has not been corroborated by any receipt or scrap of paper. She has also argued that in the annexure 'A' the complainant no. 1 mentioned the Numbers of different policies and amount of premium which are manufactured by the complainant No. 1 himself without any supporting document that he paid the amount. From Running page 9 of the petition of complaint it is evident that the Complainant No. 1 received the Policy Bond. Therefore, there is no question of miss-selling. It is not the course of business of the OPs that the company would contact with the purchasers of the policies. For cancellation of policy the complainant No. 1 never contacted with the OPs for the free look period. Even, he did not disclose when the policies were received by him from the insurance company. Therefore, the OPs have no liability in the present case. The Advocate's notice dated 12.12.2011 is beyond the free look period. The Ld. Counsel has further drawn our attention by showing page No. 32, Annexure 'F' of the petition of Complaint where it is categorically mentioned that the policy No. 14589914 against the application No. LL-40600171 was surrendered and the OPs duly processed the surrender request and transferred Rs.5,94,862.20 to the account of the Complainant No. 1, since deceased. Therefore, the Complainant wanted to surrender single policy only and accordingly the amount was transferred to the account of the Complainant No. 1. The policies were become void at the time of filing the Complaint. Therefore, the OPs did not send any letter to the complainant No. 1. The statement of the complainant No. 1 that he is visited the office of the OPs, is also not true since no such document has been furnished by the Complainant No. 1. When the OPs asked the relevant questions to the present Complainants through their questionnaire, all answers came in negative by the Complainant no. 1. All policies were received within the period from 21.10.2010 to 25.11.2011 but it was intentionally suppressed by Complainants. The policies were in lapse condition and since there is no acceptance of the policies no equitable relief could be granted to the complainants. The case is barred by limitation and back for non-joinder of necessary party. Moreover, the present complainants are not consumers accordingly the complaint should be dismissed.
Before discussing the merit of the case first we have to consider whether the case is barred by limitation or whether the case is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
The first point to be considered whether the case is barred by limitation under Section 24 A of C.P Act, 1986. It is true that the policies were purchased by the complainant No. 1, since deceased in the period from 21.10.2010 to 25.11.2011. The instant compliant has been filed by the complainant No. 1 on 27.02.2019. The argument of the OPs is that it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. But from the documents i.e. letter dated 17.04.2018 issued by the OPs, OPs acknowledged that they have transferred the amount of Rs. 5,94,862.20 in the account of the Complainant. The allegations of the complainants no. 1 were not resolved till date By the letter dated 17th April, 2018 issued by the OPs it is evident that the Complainant No. 1 surrendered the policy no. 14589914 and the amount of Rs. 5,94,862.20 was transferred to his account on November
18. 2017. The OPs had clarified the queries of the Complainant by their letter dated 17.04.2018. The instant complaint has been filed by the Complainant on 27th February, 2019. The continuous correspondence by the Complainant with the OPs proves that the case is not barred by limitation rather there is continuous cause of action.
The allegation on behalf of the OPs is that the Complaint is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. The OPs never agitated this issue before this Commission by filing separate application challenging the maintainability of the case due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The OPs have stated this issue in the written version only in the form of formal denial. Therefore, the case should not be defeated on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction after proceeding of the complaint case before this commission for long seven years. Moreover, the C.P. Act is a benevolent legislation and its aim is to protect the interest of the consumers. The consumer Forum should avoid technical issues while disposing the matter. There are plethora of judgments passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC in this aspect. Whether this Commission is right Commission to entertain the matter that has been decided by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant who filed the instant case. At the time of final hearing the Complainant No. 3 fairly has submitted that the Complainants are layman and her father has filed the case as per instruction of the erstwhile Ld. Counsel. We are of the considered view that the Complainant should not be suffered for the act of the chosen advocate on behalf of the deceased Complainant No. 1. In this connection we can cite the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq and Another vs. Munsilal and Anr. where the Hon'ble Court has observed the following :
".....the problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanor of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen Advocate defaulted ....."
In several judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is held that in the consumer matter the complaint should not be dismissed on mere technical ground or procedural irregularities. Court must prioritize substantive justice over technicalities to avoid frustrating the purpose of legal remedies. Disputes should be resolved based on their merits rather than technical defaults. Dismissing cases on minor technicalities increases litigation burden and defeats the purpose of specialized forums. In this connection we can cite the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions where the Hon'ble court held that technicalities should not prevent substantive justice as the Act's purpose is to protect consumers, not to dismiss cases due to minor procedural shortcomings. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.
Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of entire materials on record there is no denial that Complainant No.1 purchased 89 policies in question from the OPs. The OPs have argued that the number of policies and the amount paid by the complainant No. 1 mentioned in the annexure 'A' of the petition of complaint is manufactured document by the Complainant No.1 himself. But we have observed that the letter dated 03.05.2012 was issued by OPs which has been annexed as Running page 19 with the petition of Complaint. In point No. 2 of the said letter the OPs have admitted that they have received various cheques and Demand Drafts and cash at different point of time for different policies. For clear understanding the point No. 2 is reproduced herein under:
"2. As per the records of the company, we have received various cheques, DDs and cash at different point of time for different policies. The details of payment made by your client towards policies is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A. From the attached details, it is apparent that if your client has made a lump sum payment for an amount of Rs. 34 lakhs to Mr. Arup Dutta is completely beyond comprehension and the said dealing is between Arup Kumar Dutta and your client. "
Therefore, it is evident that the complainant No. 1 paid Rs. 34 lakhs which was not denied by the OPs. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the OPs that no receipt has been filed by the Complainant no. 1 towards payment, is not acceptable rather in point no. 3 the OPs have suggested to initiated proceedings against Mr. Arup Kumar Dutta. The wordings of the OPs can be understood from the point No. 3 in the said letter dated 03.05.2012 which is reproduced as under:
"It is surprising that your client instructed you to issue the notice to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and has not instructed you to initiate appropriate proceedings against Mr. Arup Kumar Dutta, from a plain reading of your notice, it appears that if allegation of your client is taken, it is a clear cut case of forgery and criminal breach of trust by Mr. Arup Kumar Dutta against your client which is heinous crime for which your client should have initiated appropriate legal proceeding against Mr. Arup Kumar Dutta which he has not done. It appears from the Annexure A that your client is involved in some kind of money laundering activities in collusion with Mr. Arup Kumar Dutta."
The OPs have apprehended that the Complainant No. 1 involved in money laundering activities in collusion with said Arup Kumar Dutta. But nowhere OPs denied the fact that said Arup Kumar Dutta was not their agent through whom the policies in question were purchased.
In the letter dated 03.05.2012 the Ops have stated that as per IRDA mandate the Insurance Company is under an obligation call all policy holders prior to issuance of policy. The wordings of the letter is reproduced herein under:
"The company reserves its rights to report this to appropriate authority for further investigation, while we dispute and deny all the allegation made in notice under reply. With regard to your contention that as per IRDA mandate Insurance Company is under an obligation to call all policy holder prior to issuance of policy, we request you to throw some lights on the provision of Insurance Act, IRDA Act, rules, regulation and circular framed thereunder referred by you. We state that it is completely at the discretion of the company to verify the details before/after issuance of the policy. The Company has made calls against 69 policies. Further, please find the attached sheet with list of 46 policies in which the verification calling were done by the company. For the rest of the policies, although the Company tried contacting, the phone number was switched off or not reachable."
We have observed that the allegation of the complainant is the mobile number written in the policy Bond is the mobile number of the agent, not the mobile number of the complainant no. 1. The OPs have neither denied the fact that said Aurp Kumar Dutta was their agent nor denied that the mobile number was the number of the said agent. Therefore, the OPs have contacted with Arup Kumar Dutta and he received the phone call of the company and thereafter he kept his mobile switched off. It may be presumed that in respect of 46 policies verifications were made by the company contacting the agent of the company for rest of the policies when the mobile was switched off then the OPs should have intimated the Complainant no. 1 by sending letter or through mail but the OPs have fail to show any communication with the complainant no. 1 for rest of the policies when they found that the mobile was switched off. Therefore, as per IRDA mandate how the OPs issued the policies in respect of those rest of the policies it is not explained by any scrap of paper. Therefore, OPs issued some the policies without receiving the confirmation since the mobile was switched off. The premium amount of those ought to have been refunded to the complainant no. 1 since no confirmation was received from the purchaser. It is evident from the record that the mobile number issued by the OPs on their document is not that of the Complainant No. 1. They never denied that the mobile number written by them is of the mobile number of the third party. Probably, the Communication and telephonic message was sent to that phone number which was used as Complainant's number. The allegation on behalf of OPs that the agent should be made as a necessary party cannot be entertained. The OPs have not denied that the mobile number used for the policies in question were not of their agent. They have neither stated that said Arup Dutta was not their agent. It is settled principle of law that for any act of the agent the principal is liable. When the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case for non-joinder of necessary party that is the agent of the OPs namely Mr. Arup Dutta then it is proved said Arup Dutta was certainly their agent. They have advised the Complainant to take legal steps against said Arup Dutta but what prevented them to take legal initiative against said Arup Dutta it is not established.
The Complainant has purchased the policies for Rs. 34,00,000/- in total which is evident from the Order of ombudsman where the Ombudsman could not entertain the matter since the disputed amount was above Rs. 34,00,000/-.
In the Paragraph No. 7 of the said letter OPs clearly stated that 87 number of Policies existed in the name of Mr. Ashoke Chatterjee / the deceased complainant No. 1 and the 2 policies were issued on the life of Ishita Chatterjee/ the complainant No. 3. These policies were issued by the company on receipt of duly filled up form and the premium amount. Therefore, it is admitted position that the averments made in the complaint petition that Complainant no. 1 purchased 89 policies were true and it is also evident that out of 89 policies only 1 policy was surrendered by the OPs being policy No. 14589914.
On perusal of entire materials on record it appears that though the Ld. Counsel for the OPs has mentioned that in the letter issued by the Complainant no.1 dated 25.07.2011 addressed to the OP No. 3 is manufactured document since the policy numbers were manufactured by the Complainant himself but from the letters dated 03.05.2012 and dated 24.07.2018 issued by the OPs it appears that Complainant No. 1 since, deceased, purchased 87 policies in the name of complainant no. 1 and 2 policies in the name of the complainant no. 3. Out of those 89 policies only one policy was surrendered being policy no. 14589914.
At the time of final hearing the Commission has asked the Ld. Counsel for the OPs that by which provision they have transferred the amount of Rs.5,94,862.20 in the account of the erstwhile Complainant in respect of the policy no.14589914 where the premium amount was only 4 lakhs for this particular policy. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs failed to show any calculation to that extent. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainants has submitted that the premium for that particular policy was Rs.4,00,000/- .Therefore, the OPs have failed to show any cogent reason why they have refunded Rs.5,94,862.20 for the policy no.14589914. Moreover, from the letter dated 17.04.2018 it is apparent that they have processed the surrender value to the account of the Complainant No. 1 as per request of surrender by the erstwhile Complainant on November 18, 2017. The letter dated 25.07.2011 reveals that the Complainant No. 1 did not want to continue with all his policies. Therefore, on what ground the OPs have took initiative to surrender only one policy excepting all other 88 policies it is not clear. The first part of the letter dated 25.07.2011 issued by Complainant no. 1 has been admitted by the OPs that the Complainant No. 1 opened his policy bonds and noticed that all are of regular premium. But in the next part of the said letter where the numbers of the policies and paid premium amount have been mentioned that portion was denied by the OPs. It is very astonishing that the half portion of the same letter has been admitted by the OPs and the rest portion of the same has been denied by the OPs. If the OPs surrendered one policy and transferred the amount to the Complainant No. 1 as per his request then, what prevented the OPs to surrender the other policies, where Complainant No. 1 opted for discontinuing of all the policies, it is also not clear. The OPs neither surrendered the 88 policies of the Complainant nor foreclosed the same. They have also not sent a single communication to the Complainant No. 1 informing that all the 88 policies were in lapsed condition or what was the status of those policies at that relevant point of time. Even, neither the OPs informed the complainant no.1 about the premium receipt nor gave any reminder for continuation of the said policies. In their letter dated 17.04.2018 issued by the OPs addressed to the Complainant No. 1 they remained silent about the status of the 88 policies excepting the policy no. 14589914 purchased by the Complainant No. 1.
The complainant no. 1 purchased the policies from the OPs by paying Rs. 34 lakhs in total which is evident from the order of Ombudsman where the Ombudsman could not entertain the matter since the disputed amount was about Rs. 33 Lakhs.
As per above discussion it is clear that it is a case of mis-selling. When the Complainant no. 1 opted for discontinuation of all policies only one policy was surrendered by the OPs and the status of the other policies never have been disclosed by the OPs. Therefore, we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such the Complainant Nos. 2 and Complainant No. 3 being the legal heirs of the Complainant No. 1 are entitled to get relief. The Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are also entitled to compensation for prolonged harassment and mental agony suffered by them.
Accordingly, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED That the complaint case being no. CC/149/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost.
The OPs are directed to refund Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five lakh) only to the Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 along with simple interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the instant complaint till the date of realization within 60 days hereof i.d. the entire sum shall carry interest @ 7% per annum instead of @ 5% per annum.
The OPs are also hereby directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only to the Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 within the aforesaid stipulated period.
If the OPs fail to comply with the above Order within the stipulated period the Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution.
Thus, the Complaint Case is disposed of.
Let the copy of this Order be supplied to the parties, free of cost, as per Regulations.
..................
AJEYA MATILAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................
SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER