State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Asha Ram. & Ors. on 5 April, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 53/2018
Date of Presentation: 21.12.2017
Order Reserved on : 05.12.2018
Date of Order : 05.04.2019
......
The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office Main
Bazar Palampur Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P. through
its Senior Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company
Limited Divisional Office 3rd Floor Block No.7 SDA Complex
Kasumpti Shimla-9 H.P.
...... Appellant/Opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Shri Asha Ram Son of late Shri Ran Mal Verma Resident
of Village Kasba Jageher Mauza Manyara Post Office
Pahra Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P.
2. Shri Arvind Kumar Son of Shri Asha Ram Resident of
Village Kasba Jageher Mauza Manyara Post Office Pahra
Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P.
......Respondents/Complainants
3. Punjab National Bank Branch Office Palampur Tehsil
Palampur District Kangra H.P. through its Branch
Manager.
......Respondent/Opposite party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate.
For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Vinay Soni Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Ex-parte.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018)
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 19.09.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.12/2017 titled Asha Ram & Another Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of Matter:
2. Complainants filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainants have a residential house in Village Jagehar Mauza Maiara Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P. It is pleaded that complainants applied for loan amount to the tune of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) from opposite party No.2 for construction of first floor of their residential building and opposite party No.2 released the loan amount of Rs.1600000/- (Sixteen lac) on various stages of construction to the complainants and assured for release of remaining loan amount. It is further pleaded that in order to secure loan amount opposite party No.2 took Insurancepolicy from opposite party No.1 in the name of complainants. It is further pleaded that original policy remained in the custody of opposite party No.2 and terms and conditions of Insurance policy were not explained and read over to the complainants 2 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) by opposite parties. It is further pleaded that on dated 24.05.2016 at about 8:15AM the roof covering first floor was badly damaged due to heavy storm and matter was reported to the police vide DDR No.31 dated 24.05.2016. It is further pleaded that Surveyor of opposite party No.1 visited the spot on dated 28.05.2016 and inspected the building and collected the documents from complainants and assured the complainants that their claim would be settled shortly. It is further pleaded that complainants also approached the approved valuer Shri Shashi Kumar Sharma who visited the premises and prepared the damage assessment report to the tune of Rs.1130806/- (Eleven lac thirty thousand eight hundred six).
3. It is further pleaded that on dated 22.08.2016 Insurance company repudiated the claim of complainants on the ground that loss suffered by complainants does not fall within the scope of Insurance policy. It is further pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service.
Complainants sought relief of payment of Rs.1130806/- (Eleven lac thirty thousand eight hundred six) alongwith interest @12% w.e.f. 24.05.2016 till actual payment. Complainants also sought relief of payment of balance loan amount from opposite party No.2. In addition complainants sought relief of payment of Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) for 3 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) mental agony and harassment. In addition complainants sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of Insurance company pleaded therein that complainants are not legally entitled for any claim. It is pleaded that construction work of first floor was under progress and roof structure was laid over steel pillars and walls were yet to be constructed. It is further pleaded that ground floor was intact. It is further pleaded that only ground floor of building was insured by Insurance company and it is further pleaded that structure of first floor does not fall within the scope of Insurance policy. It is further pleaded that complainants obtained long term Insurance policy for ground floor only. It is further pleaded that Insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service and complainants have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present consumer complaint against opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present consumer complaint against opposite party No.1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought against opposite party No.1 sought.
4
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018)
5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank pleaded therein that present complaint against opposite party No.2 is not maintainable as the complainants have suppressed material facts from the District Forum and have not approached the Forum with clean hands. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 has sanctioned loan amount to the tune of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) to the complainants for construction work i.e. Additions, alterations and renovation of the residential house over the existing house and loan amount to the tune of Rs.1600000/- (Sixteen lac) was released on various stages. It is further pleaded that Insurance policy was obtained to secure loan amount.
6. It is further pleaded that factum of incident was reported to the opposite party No.2 by complainants. It is further pleaded that loan was granted to the complainants for construction work i.e. Additions, alternations and renovations of first floor in existing house already constructed on the ground floor. It is pleaded that on dated 24.05.2016 building was completed and no construction work was pending. It is further pleaded that complainants have given bogus cheques to opposite party No.2 to the tune of Rs.125000/- (One lac twenty five thousand) and case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is pending against the 5 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) complainants in the court of Palampur (H.P.). It is further pleaded that on dated 07.01.2015 Insurance policy was obtained by opposite party No.2 in favour of complainants and at that time construction work i.e. Additions, alternations and renovation work was running and same was within the knowledge of Development Officer of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that proposal form was filled by the Development Officer of Insurance company himself personally. It is further pleaded that loss occurred to complainants due to natural calamity. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.2 sought.
7. Complainants filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
8. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1074266/- (Ten lac seventy four thousand two hundred sixty six) to complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite party No.1 would pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) for mental harassment to the complainants. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite party No.1 would also pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainants.
6
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018)
9. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum Insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission.
10. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondents No.1 & 2 and we have also perused entire record carefully. Co-respondent No.3 proceeded ex-parte.
11. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by Insurance company is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether recommendation report submitted by Surveyor- cum-loss assessor is sacrosanct document?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
12. Complainant Arvind Kumar filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainants have a residential house in Village Jagehar Mauza Maiara Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that complainants applied for loan amount to the tune of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) from opposite party No.2 for construction of first floor of their residential building and 7 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) opposite party No.2 released loan amount of Rs.1600000/-
(Sixteen lac) on various stages of construction to complainants and assured for release of remaining loan amount. There is further recital in affidavit that in order to secure the loan amount opposite party No.2 took Insurance policy from opposite party No.1 in the name of complainants. There is further recital in affidavit that original policy remained in the custody of opposite party No.2 and original Insurance policy was not supplied to complainants and terms and conditions of Insurance policy were also not explained and read over to complainants by opposite parties.
13. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 24.05.2016 at about 8:15AM the roof covering first was badly damaged due to heavy storm and matter was reported to the police vide DDR No.31 dated 24.05.2016 and opposite parties were informed immediately. There is further recital in affidavit that Surveyor of opposite party No.1 visited the spot on dated 28.05.2016 and inspected the building and collected the documents from complainants and assured the complainants that their claim would be settled shortly. There is further recital in affidavit that complainants also approached the approved valuer Shri Shashi Kumar Sharma who visited the premises and prepared damage assessment report to the tune of Rs.1130806/- (Eleven lac thirty thousand eight hundred 8 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) six). There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 22.08.2016 Insurance company repudiated the claim of complainants.
14. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of B.S. Kapoor working as Senior Divisional Manager in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainants have not approached the District Forum with clean hands and have suppressed material facts from District Forum. There is further recital in affidavit that only ground floor of building was insured by Insurance company and no loss was reported relating to ground floor. There is further recital in affidavit that Insurance company appointed Shri Rakesh Sood IRDA approved Surveyor-cum-loss assessor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that complainants have sustained loss in roof portion of first floor and walls of the first floor were yet to be laid. There is further recital in affidavit that complainants have obtained policy w.e.f. 07.01.2015 covering ground floor structure only. There is further recital in affidavit that construction work of first floor was not completed and there is further recital in the affidavit that complainants have no cause of action and locus-standi to file present consumer complaint. There is further recital in affidavit that 9 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present consumer complaint.
15. Opposite party No.1 also filed affidavit of Rakesh Sood Surveyor-cum-loss assessor in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that New India Assurance Company hired the services of deponent to conduct the survey of alleged loss qua building of complainants. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent conducted the survey and submitted survey report on dated 16.07.2016 to the Insurance company and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand).
16. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Kulbhushan Vyas Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Office Palampur District Kangra H.P. in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.2 has sanctioned loan amount to the tune of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) to the complainants for construction work i.e. Additions, alterations and renovation of the residential house over the existing house and loan amount to the tune of Rs.1600000/- (Sixteen lac) was released on various stages. There is further recital in affidavit that loan was granted to the complainants for construction work i.e. Additions, alternations and renovations of first floor in the existing house already constructed on the ground floor. There is further recital in affidavit that at the 10 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) time of cause of action building was completed and no construction work was pending. There is further recital in affidavit that complainants have given bogus cheques to opposite party No.2 to the tune of Rs.125000/- (One lac twenty five thousand) and case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1938 is pending against the complainants. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 07.01.2015 Insurance policy was obtained by opposite party No.2 in favour of complainants and at that time construction work i.e. Additions, alternations and renovation work was running and same was within the knowledge of Development Officer of opposite party No.1.
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that at the time of issuance of Insurance policy first floor of building in question was under
construction and same was not insured and only ground floor of the building was insured and on this ground appeal filed by the Insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the Insurance policy Annexure C-1 placed on record. It is proved on record that Insurance policy was issued by opposite party No.1 w.e.f 07.01.2015 to 06.01.2030 and premium to the tune of Rs.10956/- (Ten thousand nine hundred fifty six) was received by Insurance company from the complainants. As 11 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) per Insurance policy description of items insured are as follows:
Sum Insured Summary Sl. No. Description of item Sum Insured 1 On Buildings - superstructure 2000000 2 On Building - plinth & foundations 0 3 On Plant, Machinery and accessories 0 4 On Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures and other 0 contents 5 On Stocks and Stocks in process 0 6 On Stocks held in trust 0 7 On Building compound wall 0 8 On other property specifically required to be 0 covered 9 Total sum insured including compound wall 2000000 and including Building Plinth and foundation. 10 Total sum insured including compound wall 2000000 but excluding Building Plinth and foundation.
18. In the Insurance policy name of Development Officer has been mentioned as Vijay Kumar and name of Site Agent has been mentioned as Surinder Kumar. In the description of items words buildings-superstructure have been mentioned. State Commission is of the opinion that as per law building means structure with roof and walls and as per law superstructure means structure built on top of something. It is also proved on record that loan amount was sanctioned by opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) and it is also proved 12 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) on record that Punjab National Bank has obtained Insurance policy in order to secure the loan amount. Shri Kulbhushan Vyas Branch Manager PNB has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that on dated 24.05.2016 when incident took place construction work of complainants was completed and no construction work was pending. Shri Kulbhushan Vyas has mentioned specifically that loan amount was given to the complainants for construction work i.e. Additions, alterations and renovations of first floor over the existing house and loan to the tune of Rs.1600000/- (Sixteen lac) was released to the complainants.
19. As per affidavit filed by Kulbhushan Vyas it is proved on record that Insurance policy in question was obtained to secure the loan amount advanced by opposite party No.2 to the complainants and Shri Kulbhushan Vyas has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that loan amount of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) was sanctioned by the opposite party No.2 for construction work i.e. Additions, alternations and renovation work of the first floor in the existing house already constructed on the ground floor. As per affidavit filed by Kulbhushan Vyas it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that Insurance policy was obtained in favour of the complainants by opposite party No.2 relating to first floor construction only. Shri Kulbhushan Vyas Branch Manager 13 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) PNB has specifically mentioned that facts were in the knowledge of Development Officer of opposite party No.1.
20. As per Insurance policy Annexure C-1 name of Development Officer has been mentioned as Vijay Kumar and name of site agent has been mentioned as Surinder Kumar. Insurance company did not file affidavit of Development Officer namely Vijay Kumar and site agent namely Shri Surinder Kumar in order to prove that Insurance policy was issued relating to ground floor only. There is no word in the Insurance policy Annexure C-1 that Insurance policy was issued relating to ground floor only. Word ground floor is missing in the Insurance policy Annexure C-1 placed on record. Hence plea of Insurance company that Insurance policy was issued relating to ground floor only is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof).
21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that complainants have not given declaration of under construction building in the declaration form and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance company did not send interrogatories to the complainants relating to disputed contents of declaration form. No reason assigned by Insurance company as to why Insurance company did not send any interrogatories to complainants 14 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) relating to disputed contents of declaration form. It is well settled law that previous declaration of document could not be used against the author of document unless attention of the author of document is not drawn to contents of previous declaration as per Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. No reason assigned by Insurance company as to why Insurance company did not send interrogatories to complainants relating to contents of previous declaration form as required under Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is well settled law that documentary evidence could be proved under Consumer Protection Act 1986 strictly as per Section 13(4)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per Section 13(4)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 documentary evidence could be produced in proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is producible as evidence. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi-judicial proceedings. See 2018 (2) CPJ 89 Calcutta M/s. Keso Ram Industries Limited Versus Allahabad Bank. See 1996 (2) CPC 524 Madras H.C. Manager Indian Bank & Ors. Versus District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
22. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that Surveyor-cum-loss assessor appointed by Insurance company under the Insurance Act 15 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) 1938 did not recommend the payment despite assessing the factual loss to the tune of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely Rakesh Sood has not properly interpreted the word superstructure as mentioned in the Insurance policy. In the Insurance policy two words have been written (i) Building
(ii) Superstructure. State Commission is of the opinion that matter of complainants in question falls within the definition of superstructure. As per law superstructure means structure built on the top of something. Surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely Rakesh Sood has specifically mentioned in his report in Location and Construction column that building is double storeyed building and insured constructed residential house and taken loan for construction of first floor. Surveyor-cum- loss assessor has specifically mentioned in his report that ground floor was constructed in the year 2006 and walls were built of brick masonry laid in cement mortar and roof is covered with RCC.
23. Surveyor-cum-loss assessor has specifically mentioned in his report that construction work of first floor was under progress and roof structure was laid over steel pillars and walls are yet to be constructed. Surveyor-cum-loss 16 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) assessor has mentioned in his report that CGI sheet roofing provided over MS angle trusses and purlins. Surveyor-cum- loss assessor has mentioned in his report that loss was sustained by complainants qua roof structure of first floor. State Commission is of the opinion that roof structure of first floor falls within the definition of superstructure as mentioned in the Insurance policy. It is proved on record that Surveyor- cum-loss assessor despite assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand) did not recommend the payment to insured and wrongly interpreted the word superstructure mentioned in Insurance policy issued by opposite party No.1. It is well settled law that recommendation report submitted by Surveyor-cum-loss assessor is not sacrosanct document. Complainants claim is supported with affidavit of Branch Manager PNB namely Shri Kulbhushan Vyas. There is no evidence on record that Kulbhushan Vyas has hostile animus against the Insurance company at any point of time. Even Insurance company did not send any interrogatories to the Branch Manager of PNB namely Kulbhushan Vyas. No reason assigned by the Insurance company as to why Insurance company did not send any interrogatories to Branch Manager PNB namely Kulbhushan Vyas. Shri Kulbhushan Vyas has stated in a positive manner in the affidavit that Insurance policy was issued by opposite party No.1 relating to superstructure of 17 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) first floor only. Affidavit filed by Kulbhushan Vyas is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission.
24. Affidavit filed by B.S. Kapoor Senior Divisional Manager is not sufficient because there is no evidence on record that B.S. Kapoor has personally inspected the site of construction. As per Insurance policy Surinder Kumar is site agent. Adverse inference is drawn against the Insurance company for non-filing affidavit of site agent namely Surinder Kumar mentioned in the Insurance policy. Insurance company has withheld evidence of site agent. No reason assigned by Insurance company as to why Insurance company has withheld affidavit of site agent namely Surinder Kumar mentioned in Insurance policy. Hence it is held that affidavit filed by B.S. Kapoor is based on derived knowledge and is not based upon the personal factual verification of site of construction in question.
25. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that learned District Forum has granted excessive compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to complainants and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainants have sustained mental agony and harassment and reasonable compensation has been granted by learned District Forum 18 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) relating to mental agony and harassment and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce compensation amount as ordered by learned District Forum.
26. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that excessive rate of interest has been granted by learned District Forum to the complainants @ 9% per annum and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that to grant interest rate is the discretion of District Forum/State Commission and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce the rate of interest as prayed by Insurance company. Even as per Regulation 9 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations 2002 Insurance company is under legal obligation to pay interest 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of financial year in which the claim was submitted in case of deficiency on behalf of Insurance company.
27. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that excessive litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) has been granted by learned District Forum to the complainants and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State 19 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce the litigation costs because complainants have engaged advocate and have also incurred litigation expenses before District Forum.
28. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants that complainants are legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1130806/- (Eleven lac thirty thousand eight hundred six) as assessed by valuer Shri Shashi Kumar Sharma vide his report Annexure C-3 and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance company be dismissed is decided accordingly. Complainants did not file affidavit of Shashi Kumar Sharma as per Section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is well settled law that contents of controversial documents under Consumer Protection Act 1986 could be proved only by way of affidavit of person who had signed the controversial document. Contents of controversial private documents under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are not per se admissible. See 2019 (1) HLR (HC) 294 titled Shaminder Kumar Chaoudhary Versus Sukhdev Chand & Ors. Hence plea of complainants that complainants have sustained loss to the tune of Rs.1130806/- (Eleven lac thirty thousand eight hundred six) is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). It is held that 20 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018) complainants are legally entitled for amount of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand) as assessed by Surveyor-cum-loss assessor appointed by Insurance Company under Insurance Act 1938. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
29. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party No.1 would pay Rs.1074266/- (Ten lac seventy four thousand two hundred sixty six) to complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment is modified and it is ordered that opposite party No.1 shall pay amount to the tune of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment to the complainants. It is further ordered that complainants shall obtain NOC from opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank because Insurance policy was obtained to secure loan amount paid by opposite party No.2 in favour of complainants. If complainants shall not submit NOC from opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank then entire amount to the tune of Rs.140000/- (One lac forty thousand) alongwith interest @9% per annum shall be transmitted in the loan account of complainants kept by Punjab National Bank. Entire process shall be completed within one month after receipt of certified copy of order of State Commission.
21
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Asha Ram & Ors. (F.A. No.53/2018)
30. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party No.1 would pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) for mental harassment to the complainants is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party No.1 would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainants is also affirmed. Insurance policy Annexure C-1 shall form part and parcel of order. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission.
31. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Sunita Sharma Member 05.04.2019.
*GUPTA* 22