State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chola Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... vs Shelly Gupta & Others on 22 September, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.968 of 2022
Date of institution : 11.11.2022
Reserved on : 07.08.2023
Date of decision : 22.09.2023
1. Chola MS General Insurance Co. Limited, Second Floor, Dare
House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai, through its Managing
Director/Authorised Signatory.
2. Chola MS General Insurance Co. Limited, 2907/C/10, Jindal
Complex, GT Road near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda, through its
Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.4 & 5
Versus
1. Shelly Gupta aged about 45 years, wife of Rakesh Kumar
Bansal, resident of #16797, 4, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Warden House,
Second Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai, through its
Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. DHFL, SCO 123, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Branch
Manager/Authorized Signatory.
4. DHFL Home Shield NHL underwritten by DHFL Pramerica Life
Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B,
Cyber City, DFL Phase-III, Gurgaon, through its General
Manager/Authorized Signatory.
5. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited, formerly known as
Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited herein referred to
as Piramal Finance, Registered Address: 601, 6th Floor, Amiti
Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opposite
Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla (W) Mumbai (MH) 400070.
.....Respondents No.2-5/Opposite Parties No.1-3
First Appeal No.968 of 2022 2
Present :
For the appellants : Sh. Viren Sibal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Kashish Garg, Advocate
For respondents No.2,3,&5 : Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : None
AND
2) First Appeal No.53 of 2023
Date of institution : 23.01.2023
Reserved on : 07.08.2023
Date of decision : 22.09.2023
Pramerica Life Insurance Limited (formerly known as DHFL Pramerica
Life Insurance Company Limited), 4th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B,
Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurugram-122002, Haryana, through
its General Manager/Authorized Signatory.
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3
Versus
1. Shelly Gupta aged about 45 years, wife of Rakesh Kumar
Bansal, resident of #16797, 4, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Warden House,
Second Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai, Branch Banga,
District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, through its Managing
Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. DHFL, SCO 123, Goniana Road, Bhatinda, through its Branch
Manager/Authorized Signatory.
4. Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare
House, 2 NSC Bose Road Chennai, through its Managing
Director/Authorized Signatory.
5. Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2907/C/10,
Jindal Complex, GT Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bhatinda,
through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
.....Respondents No.2-5/Opposite Parties No.1-2 & 4-5
Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate
First Appeal No.968 of 2022 3
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Kashish Garg, Advocate
For respondents No.2&3 : Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate
For respondents No.4&5 : Sh. Viren Sibal, Advocate
Appeals under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the same
order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No .................................................................................. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT By this order of ours two Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.968 of 2022 and First Appeal No.53 of 2023 shall be disposed off as the same have been filed by the appellants/OPs No.4 & 5 and also by the appellant/OP No.3 to challenge the same impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short the "District Commission") whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant Shelly Gutpa had been partly allowed.
2. First Appeal No.968 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/OPs No.4 and 5 i.e. Chola MS General Insurance Co. Limited and another and First Appeal No.53 of 2023 has been filed by the appellant/OP No.3- Pramerica Life Insurance Limited (formerly known as DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited).
First Appeal No.968 of 2022 4
3. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.968 of 2022 filed by Chola MS General Insurance Co. Limited & another.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of said two appeals are that the complaint was filed by the complainant Shelly Gupta, the wife of the insured deceased husband Sh. Rakesh Gupta, who had taken personal loan and the complainant was co-borrower of Rs.14,26,876/-. Said loan was sanctioned on 22.03.2017 with EMI of Rs.18,397/- for a period of 15 years by DHFL (Finance Company) and the husband of the complainant had mortgaged his plot measuring 113 square yards and an additional amount of Rs.1,09,954/- was sanctioned as additional loan amount towards premium of the insurance policies as purchased by DHFL. As per the case of the complainant, the disbursement of loan amount was Rs.14,00,000/- and an additional amount of Rs.1,09,954/- was sanctioned on account of premium of insurance policies to be paid by DHFL being the Master Policy Holder, who had paid the premiums as per details reproduced as under:-
Sr. Insurance Company Policy Premium
No. Amount
1. DHFL Premerica Life DHFL Home Shield NHL Rs.9370/-
Insurance Company Limited (for insuring loan amount(
2. Chola MS General Insurance Family Floater Insurance Rs.14,286/-
Company Limited (Health Insurance)
3. Chola MS General Insurance Personal Accident Rs.3220/-
Company Limited Insurance
First Appeal No.968 of 2022 5
The total premium amount of said three insurance policies was directly paid by the Master Policy Holder and it was debited from the loan account of deceased husband of the complainant. The husband of the complainant Sh. Rakesh Gupta had been paying the installment of the loan amount till he fell ill and thereafter he was found to be suffering from Covid and ultimately expired on 12.06.2021. Thereafter, the complainant had submitted all the required documents for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on the treatment of deceased husband for claiming the benefits available under the three policies issued by DHFL but still the OPs had failed to process the insurance claim and due to this reason, the complainant had to file the complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer:
(i) to directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.16,20,974/-
alongwith interest of 18% p.a. from the date of payment of bills of hospitalization;
(ii) to waive the loan amount on account of loan being insured and returned the sale deed, which is mortgaged;
(iii) to pay an amount of Rs.14,26,875/- on account of life insurance of deceased husband of the complainant;
(iv) to pay an amount of Rs.14,17,505/-;
(v) and to further pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account
of Family Floater Insurance.
(vi) to pay Rs.20,00,000/- on account of life insurance covered;
(vii) to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment, etc.; and
(viii) to pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No.968 of 2022 6
5. Upon issuance of notice the complaint was opposed by the OPs by filing separate written replies.
6. OP No.3 filed written reply and opposed the averments as made by the complainant in the complaint stating therein that the name of the entity was changed from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited to "Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited", vide certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of the Companies, Mumbai dated 03.11.2021. It was mentioned in the complaint that OP No.3 i.e. Pramerica Life Insurance Limited (erstwhile DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited) was a corporate body and had issued Insurance Policy and Certificate of Insurance i.e. "DHFL Home Shield/Pramerica Life Group Credit Life+" bearing No.GC000006M793500 in the name of Rakesh Kumar, being the member of Master Policy Holder, for providing the coverage sum assured of Rs.14,26,874/- with terminal illness benefits of Rs.4,15,105/- for a period of 2 years commending from 22.03.2017 till 21.03.2019. The policy premium was Rs.9,613/-. The deceased life assured had expired on 12.06.2021 whereas the policy had already expired on 21.03.2019. The complainant was not entitled to any benefit under the policy.
7. OPs No.4 and 5 had mentioned in their reply that no claim was ever lodged with OPs No.4 and 5. The deceased had died a natural death occurred due to Corona which was out of purview of accidental death. It was further mentioned that there was no health insurance coverage/policy on the date of death of the deceased First Appeal No.968 of 2022 7 Rakesh Kumar and it was not a case of accidental death as the deceased had not taken health insurance after 2020.
8. None had appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2 despite service and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.06.2022 by the District Commission.
9. The District Commission by considering the contents of the complaint and replies filed by the OP No.3 and OPs No.4 and 5 had partly allowed the complaint with the following directions:-
"58. In view of above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against all the opposite parties jointly and severally with further following directions:-
a) The opposite party No.3 is directed to pay outstanding amount of loan, availed by Rakesh Kumar, DLI, to opposite parties No.1 and 2.
b) The opposite party No.3 is also directed to pay Terminal Illness benefit of Rs.4,15,105.98 of deceased Rakesh Kumar to his nominee i.e. complainant.
c) The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of DLI and to return the original Sale Deed No.3 dated 1.4.2015 to complainant on payment of outstanding amount by opposite party No.3.
d) The opposite parties No.4 & 5 are directed to pay Rs.3.00 Lacs to complainant under Group Family Floater Policy being First Appeal No.968 of 2022 8 reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at Fortis Hospital, Mohali, on the treatment of deceased Rakesh Kumar.
It was also mentioned in the impugned order that in case the order passed by the District Commission was not complied with within the period of 45 days, the OPs would be liable to pay interest @8% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of order till its realization.
10. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the District Commission, First Appeal No.968 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/OPs No.4 and 5-Chola MS General Insurance Co. Limited and another and First Appeal No.53 of 2023 by the appellant/OP No.3 i.e. Pramerica Life Insurance Limited (formerly known as DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited).
11. There was delay of 67 days in filing of the appeal No.968 of 2022. M.A. No.1524 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit. Delay was condoned vide order dated 16.11.2022 and said M.A. was disposed of.
12. There was delay of 118 days in filing of the appeal No.53 of 2023. M.A. No.98 of 2023 was filed for condonation of delay supporting by an affidavit. The delay was condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.
13. Learned counsel has requested that out of the amount so deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, the amount of cost be transferred in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this First Appeal No.968 of 2022 9 Commission. The request was allowed and said M.A. was disposed off accordingly.
14. Mr. Viren Sibal Advocate representing the appellants- Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (First Appeal No.968 of 2022) has submitted that respondents No.2 and 3-DHFL (now Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited) were provided the housing loan and personal loan at the minimum rate of interest to the deceased Rakesh Kumar, the husband of the complainant. He has further stated that respondents No.2 and 3-DHFL had tie ups with the appellants and the appellants provided the Life Insurance, Floater Health Policy and group personal accident to them. Learned counsel has also submitted that the Family Floater Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance were issued against the premium of Rs.14,286/- and Rs.3220/- respectively to the insured Rakesh Kumar but no working relationship was existed between the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3-DHFL in view of the merger with the new company being Pramerica Life Insurance Limited. Respondent No.1/complainant was not beneficiary in any manner of the Group Family Floater Policy. The Group Family Floater Policy was not in existence but still the District Commission has awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The District Commission has erred while assuming the period of insurance on its own. Learned counsel has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the District Commission.
First Appeal No.968 of 2022 10
15. Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant-Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Lmited (First Appeal No.53 of 2023) has submitted that the District Commission has wrongly directed the appellant to pay Terminal Illness benefit to the tune of Rs.4,15,105.98 whereas the life assured had expired due to Covid and as such the Terminal Illness benefit was not payable. The District Commission has relied upon the Proposal Form wherein the coverage term was mentioned as 180 months but the coverage term was 24 months and not 180 months. Learned counsel has further submitted that only the application Form was only the Proposal given by the policyholder. It might be possible that the policy documents were received by the husband of the respondent No.1/complainant and she might be not aware about the policy documents and due to this reason she had to obtain policy documents through RTI. Respondent No.1/complainant had obtained the policy documents through RTI just to show that she was unaware about the coverage term of 24 months. The coverage term of the policy was 24 months and the District Commission has wrongly awarded the amount to the complainant. Learned counsel has also relied upon judgments of cases (1) "Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Vs. Garg Sons International" 2013(1) Scale-410, (2) "Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Limited Vs. United India Insurnace Co. Limited" 2010(10) SCC-567, (3) "Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Madhavacharya" R.P. No.211 of 2009, (4) "General Insurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumul Jain & another" 1966 (3) SCC-500, (5) United Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Harchand Rai Chandanlal" First Appeal No.968 of 2022 11
2003(I) CPG-393, (6) "Vikram Greentech (I) Limited & another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited" 2009(II) CPJ-34, (7) "Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines" 2000(1) SCC-66, (8) "Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. limited", (9) "Shrikand Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India" R.P No.634 of 2012, decided on 02.05.2013 and (10) "Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Siba Prasad Dash" 2008(IV) CPJ-156 (NC) in support of his arguments.
16. Mr. Kashish Garg Advocate, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1/complainant in both the appeal has submitted that the deceased life assured Rakesh Gupta had taken a personal loan of Rs.14,26,876/- and the complainant was co-borrower. The loan was sanctioned on 22.03.2017 with EMI of Rs.18,397/- for a period of 15 years by DHFL. Learned counsel has further submitted that additional loan amount of Rs.1,09,954/- was sanctioned as additional loan amount toward premiums of three insurance policies as purchased by DHFL. The amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was disbursed to the husband of the complainant. After the death of Rakesh Kumar, the complainant lodged the claim to the OPs but her claim was not processed. Learned counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had rightly held that the appellants were liable to pay the outstanding loan amount as well as terminal illness benefit. The Proposal Form was duly filled up and signed by Rakesh Kumar. Now DHFL cannot change the terms as alleged in written reply. The replies filed by the OPs were contradictory to the contents of application Form and the premium amount as mentioned in the Welcome Letter which First Appeal No.968 of 2022 12 was not matching with the premium claimed by the Company. Learned counsel has also submitted that after filing of claim, the DHFL had issued revised letter of offer-cum-acceptance dated 12.10.2021, whereas Rakesh Kumar died on 1206.2021 by mentioning that loan amount had been revised to Rs.14,26,876/- and the insurance amount was revised to Rs.26,876/-, which was deducted from the total disbursed amount. Learned counsel has further submitted that DHFL had got the insurance policies from its own associate partners/subsidiaries. The insurance companies had failed to supply the terms and conditions of the policies. The prime responsibility to pay the insurance premium was of the DHFL. The default, if any, it was on the part of DHFL, who was the Master of Policyholder.
17. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and we have also perused the documents/evidence available on record, impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the District Commission and also the grounds.
First Appeal No.968 of 2022
18. The District Commission has party allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant under Group Family Floater Policy being reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at Fortis Hospital Mohali on the treatment of insured Rakesh Kumar. The appellants-Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited and another have admitted that they had tie up with respondents No.2 and 3- DHFL, who provided the personal loan to the insured. It is the case of the appellants that respondent No.1 had not First Appeal No.968 of 2022 13 paid any premium to renew the policy and without renewal of insurance policy no policy holder can be a beneficiary of any insurance policy. Learned counsel has relied upon Annexure A-3, the renewal receipts. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant has contended that DHFL Bank had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.15,09,954/- and disbursed an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,09,954 was retained by the DHFL Bank on account of premium of insurance policy(s) to be paid by DHFL being the Master Policy Holder. This fact has not been rebutted by the appellants. It is also apparent on perusal of Annexure A-3 (the renewal receipts) placed on record by learned counsel for the appellants-Chola MS General Insurance Co. Limited that DHFL was the Master Policy Holder. We have also perused the Proposal Form Ex.C-5 and C-6 pertaining to the appellants/OPs No.4 and 5. These are typed documents and were not filled by the deceased life insured Rakesh Kumar. He had only put his signatures. This Proposal Form was for two policies i.e. (1) Group Family Floater Health Insurance for Rs.3,00,000/- and premium amount was mentioned as Rs.12,532/- + Rs.1754/- service tax, (2) Group Personal Accident Cover opted for 5 years and premium amount was mentioned as Rs.2825/- + Rs.395/- service tax. It is pertinent to mention here that in Group Family Floater Heath Insurance term of policy was not mentioned. The stand of appellants is that DLI had paid premium upto 21.11.2018 and thereafter he had not renewed the policy. It is pertinent to mention that receipt numbers on all the receipts are the same whereas the dates have been mentioned as on 23.02.2018, 21.11.2018 and 10.07.2019. First Appeal No.968 of 2022 14 The District Commission has rightly observed that the documents issued by the opposite parties No.4 and 5 in connection with this policy contradictory to each other. Moreover it is apparent on perusal of documents produced by the OPs that the policy terms and conditions were issued to M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (OPs No.1 and 2). The appellants/OPs No.4 and 5 had also failed to prove on record that the terms and conditions were supplied to the DLI. No documents were neither placed on record by the appellants/OPs No.4 and 5 before the District Commission nor before this Commission. OPs No.1 and 2 had already deducted an amount of Rs.1,09,954/- from the total disbursement amount towards total insurance. However the appellants have not placed on record any document to prove that now they have no tie up with OPs No.1 and 2.
19. As per ground taken in the appeal the policy was in expired/lapsed condition. Provision 50 of The Insurance Act, 1938 [as amended by Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002] is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"50. An insurer shall, before the expiry of three months from the date on which the premiums in respect of a policy of life insurance were payable but not paid, give notice to the policy-holder informing him of the options available to him unless these are set forth in the policy."
20. The appellant/OP has not placed on record any evidence/document neither before the District Commission nor before this Commission with regard to information sent to the First Appeal No.968 of 2022 15 respondent/complainant regarding non-payment of due premium and lapsed condition of the policy.
21. We find no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants. The District Commission has passed a well reasoned detailed order while partly allowing the complaint against the appellants/OPs No.4 and 5.
First Appeal No.53 of 2023
22. Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the term of the policy which provided a coverage of sum assured of Rs.14,26,874/- with terminal illness benefits of Rs.4,15,105.98/- was for a period of two years. The term of the policy had expired on 21.03.2019 whereas DLI had expired on 12.06.2021 and as such the respondent/complainant was not entitled to any benefit. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the term of the policy was 180 months.
23. We have carefully perused the record of the case as well as the order passed by the District Commission. Para Nos.46 and 47 of the order passed by the District Commission are relevant and the same are reproduced as under :-
"46. As far as policy (Ex.C-3/OP-1/3) issued by opposite party No.3 is concerned, it has been issued on the basis of Application Ex.C-4/OP-1/2. Ex.C-4/OP-1/2 shows that loan amount is Rs.14,26,875/- and loan tenure is 180 months and the premium First Appeal No.968 of 2022 16 funded by MPH (Master Policy Holder). In column 'coverage information', it has been mentioned that premium is Rs.9370/-, premium paying term '01' and coverage terms is 'months 180', but surprisingly, opposite party No.3 relied upon policy Ex.C- 3/OP-1/3 which is not consonance with the application Ex.C- 4/OP-1/2.
47. Accordingly, complainant being nominee of deceased life insured Rakesh Kumar is entitled to coverage in force as well as to terminal illness benefit as per terms and conditions of policy."
Admittedly the term of the policy was mentioned as 180 months in the Proposal Form and the appellant Insurance Company has also admitted that they accepted the Proposal Form. Moreover, an advance amount of Rs.1,09,954/- was deducted by OPs No.1 and 2 (Master Policy Holder) towards premiums and they were held liable to pay the premiums to the insurance company. No such letter regarding unpaid premium or lapsed conditions of policy was sent to the DLI by the insurance company. It is pertinent to mention here that the terms and conditions were not supplied to the DLI as respondent No.1/complainant had to get the same through RTI Act. The Insurance Company has also not brought on record any evidence like postal receipt, courier receipt, etc. with regard to sending the terms and conditions of the policy documents to the DLI. Accordingly, we find no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.3.
24. It was the duty of the appellant/OP No.3 to produce list of illness which comes under the terminal illness. Admittedly the DLI was First Appeal No.968 of 2022 17 found 'Positive' of Rapid Antigen Covid-19 on 23.04.2021 (Ex.C-17) and had remained under treatment for the same. On 12.06.2021 he was diagnosed with Severe Covid illness (Ex.C-22) and remained admitted in hospital and he died due to severe Covid illness on 12.06.2021 (Ex.C-26 & C-27).
25. In view of above discussions and the reasons, we are of the view that the District Commission has appreciated the evidence and relevant documents available on record and had passed a well reasoned order.
26. Moreover the complainant had lodged the claim and OPs No.1 and 2 had issued revised letter of offer-cum-acceptance dated 11.08.2021 after the death of DLI. By considering these reasons the District Commission has rightly reached to the conclusion that held OPs deficient in service.
27. In view of above discussion, we find no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the both the appellants of First Appeal No.968 of 2022 and First Appeal No.53 of 2023 and finding no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants the appeal Nos.968 of 2022 and 53 of 2023 are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.
28. The appellants/OPs No.4 & 5 (First Appeal No.968 of 2022) had deposited an amount Rs.1,55,491/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the First Appeal No.968 of 2022 18 District Commission by way of cheque/demand draft in accordance with law. The respondent No.1 /complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
29. The appellant/OP No.3 (First Appeal No.53 of 2023) had deposited an amount Rs.9,25,989.99 paise at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Out of said amount, the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the cost imposed on the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal vide order dated 07.08.2023, shall be deducted by the Registry for depositing the same in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. The remaining amount along with interest which has accrued on Rs.9,25,989.99 paise, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
30. Since the main cases are decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
31. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER September 22, 2023.
MM