State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jarnail Singh vs Jeet Agency Pvt. Ltd. on 7 September, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016
Date of institution : 24.08.2016
Reserved On : 29.08.2017
Date of decision : 07.09.2017
Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Lila Ram, Resident of House No.330, near Mukul
Gas Agency, Sunder Nagar, Damkora Road, Tohana, District
Fatehabad, Haryana.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Jeet Agency Private Limited, near Radha Swami Satsang
Bhawan, Siswa Road, Kurali, District Mohali, Punjab.
2. MAN Trucks India Private Limited, Plot No.3B-1, 2A and 2C,
Sector-1, Pithampur Industrial Estate, Pithampur, District Dhar,
Madhya Pradesh, PIN-454775.
3. SREI Equipment Finance Limited, Registered Office at
Vishwakarma, 86C, Topsia Road (South), Kolkata, West Bengal,
Regional Office at SCO 130-131, 1st Floor, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Mohan Singla, Advocate For opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. Sunil Dixit, Advocate For opposite party No.3 : Ex parte JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT : M.A. No.814 of 2017
During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved this application for analysis of the CD, Ex.C-7, by way of Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 2 sending the same for laboratory analysis. No reply was filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Transcript of the same has been placed on the record as Ex.C-7. Since no reply has been filed to the application, there is no need to send the CD, Ex.C-7, for analysis to the laboratory, because the transcript is already on the record, which is not being disputed by opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of in the above terms. If at any stage, need arises for analyzing the said CD, the complainant will be at liberty to move fresh application for its examination by the competent authority.
Main Case Facts of the Complaint The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act").
2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased heavy commercial Tipper (truck) bearing Temporary Registration No.PB-65-AE-(T)4813 for his own use, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by way of self- employment, for a sum of ₹31,63,000/- from opposite party No.1, who is authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. The complainant has got partly financed the said truck from opposite party No.3 to the extent of ₹25,30,000/- and the remaining amount of ₹6,33,000/- was borne by the complainant. Opposite party No.3 directly credited the amount of ₹25,30,000/- in the account of opposite party No.1 and the complainant also paid the amount of ₹6,33,000/- in account of account of opposite Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 3 party No.1, through RTGS as well as cash. The details of the amount paid are as under:
Sr. Amount Date Paid by Paid from Paid to
No. (in Rs.)
1 3,20,000 29.04.2016 RTGS by Dena Bank, Opposite
complainant Tohana party No.1 at
Panchkula
2. 2,00,000 27.05.2016 -do- -do- -do-
3. 1,24,000 16.06.2016 Complainant Cash Opposite
party No.1 at
Kurali
4. 25,30,000 15.06.2016 Opposite Chandigarh -do-
party No.3
After the receipt of payment, opposite party No.1 gave the delivery of the truck to the brother of the complainant on 16.06.2016 in the late evening, without informing the complainant. However, later on, on the asking of the complainant, through his letter dated 24.06.2016, opposite party No.1 informed him that the delivery had been made to his brother, Avtar Singh. As the delivery of the truck was given late in the evening, so the vehicle could not be checked. On the next day i.e. 17.06.2016, the truck was taken to the field for loading sand in it and it was found that the same was not working properly. The following defects were detected in the truck, in question:
a) Air conditioner was not installed in the cabin of the truck, despite promise to provide the same;
b) Fan blower was also damaged by the Technicians during their second visit on 29.06.2016;Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 4
c) Differential lock was not working, which was temporarily repaired by Mechanics in their second visit;
d) It could not run towards the upper ramp after loading;
e) High Noise was continuously coming from the rear axle;
f) Its dumper system could not unload the material loaded in it, as oil was getting leakage;
g) It was not getting speed after loading;
h) Its clutch was giving a jerk in the lower gears;
i) Many interior and exterior screw of the truck were in loose
condition, some of them were screwed by the
engineers/technicians while repairing; and
j) speed governor was damaged by the Engineers during their first
visit.
The complainant informed opposite party No.1 telephonically on 17.06.2016 about the said defects and the non-working condition of the said vehicle. After 2-3 days, Mr. Vinod Gupta, from opposite party No.1, visited the complainant, along with Engineer/Technician, who checked the truck, but were unable to remove the defects. Rather, they damaged the speed governor of the truck, as a result of which the speed of the truck started exceeding automatically, which could not be controlled. Mr. Vinod Gupta returned back to the workshop, with a promise to call the company engineers to remove the defects.
However, no one turned up for rectifying the defects in the truck. The complainant gave a written complaint to the opposite parties, vide letter dated 24.06.2016, and complained about the late delivery and defects Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 5 in the truck and requested the Company to replace the defected/ useless truck with a brand new truck. On 29.06.2016, a team of five persons, including Vinod Gupta; Rajender Kumar, Manager (both from opposite party No.1); and Subhash Chander, Engineer (from opposite party No.2), came to the house of the complainant and assured to remove the defects of the truck. They brought the truck in the field many times for its checking, but after loading and unloading, they opened the parts of the truck and tried to repair it, but they could not remove the defects. Rajender Kumar, Manager, prepared a defect report/MOM dated 29.06.2016 on the instructions of Subhash Chander, Engineer. In the said report, some defects were referred and some were concealed. Originally, Subhash Chander had signed the said report, but later on he made overwriting on his signatures, with malafide intention. The said team of experts told the complainant that there were so many defects in the truck, which could not be repaired and asked the complainant to bring the truck at the workshop, either at Hisar or Kurali, so that they could repair all the defected parts and refit the same in the truck. The complainant told them that the agency delivered a defected and useless truck to him and requested them to provide brand new truck to him. However, they flatly refused to do so. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 02.07.2016 upon opposite parties No.1 & 2, calling upon them to replace the defective and useless truck with a new one and to pay compensation for causing harassment and mental agony, besides recurring loss due to non-use thereof, as they had already received the full and final payment of a Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 6 brand new truck. Opposite party No.1 sent reply dated 16.07.2016 and opposite party No.2 also sent reply dated 07.07.2016 to the legal notice sent by the complainant, flatly denying their liability and threatening to file a false criminal complaint against him and forced him to withdraw the legal notice. It was further averred that opposite party No.3 partly financed the truck and the complainant had to pay monthly instalment of ₹72,000/- to it, in lieu of the loan obtained by him. Thus, opposite party No.3 kept on demanding the payment of instalments. Since the truck was not in working condition, so the complainant was not in a position to earn his livelihood and was not in a position to pay the instalments. Opposite party No.3 had received some blank cheques from the complainant and submitted the same to the Bank, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. On 28.07.2016, the opposite parties called the complainant at the office of opposite party No.3 and pressurized him to get repaired the defective truck from any of the workshops of the Company and flatly refused to replace the truck. They further threatened to implicate him in a false criminal case. On 10.08.2016, on asking of opposite parties No.1 & 2, the complainant brought the truck to their workshop at Hisar. The Engineers checked the truck whole day and drove the empty truck, instead of putting load to check the same in fields, and told that the same was running properly. Thereafter, they took the truck to the field and loaded the same and when they tried to drive truck, the same did not run properly. Thereafter, opposite parties No.1 & 2 told the complainant that he cannot be given brand new truck. The complainant Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 7 has been suffering financial loss of ₹6,000/- per day, due to the non- working of the truck, besides suffering mental tension and harassment. Earlier, the complainant filed Complaint No.239 of 2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 11.08.2016, with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Hence, he filed this complaint, seeking following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to replace the defected and useless truck with a brand new top model truck;
OR to refund the total amount paid by the complainant and opposite party No.3 for purchasing the brand new vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till payment;
ii) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and
iii) to pay cost of complaint.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
3. In pursuance to the notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared, through their respective counsels. Opposite party No.1 filed reply to the complaint. Opposite party no.2 did not file its reply within the stipulated period of 45 days and, hence, its reply was ordered to be taken off the record, vide order dated 28.11.2016. On the same day, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 and it was proceeded against ex parte.
4. Opposite party No.1, in its reply, raised preliminary objections that the present dispute is commercial in nature and the Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 8 complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer, as per the Act. Complicated questions of facts and law are involved and the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings. The complainant has concealed the material facts. He intentionally did not disclose his earlier notice dated 26.06.2016, wherein he denied that the truck was not delivered to him. The truck, in question, was delivered to Sh. Avtar Singh, brother of the complainant, on 16.06.2016 in day time to his entire satisfaction. Gate pass/receipts duly indicate this fact. On merits, it was admitted that the truck was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1, but it was pleaded that it was purchased for commercial use. For the first time, the complainant raised objection on 21.06.2016 that some sound was coming and immediately, Technician, Amit, visited him on 22.06.2016. On 23.06.2016, Vinod Gupta visited the site and checked the truck, in question. On 29.06.2016, a team of Technicians visited the spot and found that there were some minor problems in the truck, which were repairable. However, the complainant never allowed the Technicians to touch the truck and deprived them to get the repairs done. It was further averred that no intimation was given on 17.06.2016 and the truck is fine and in good working condition. The contents of the complaint are against letter dated 24.06.2016, in which the complainant even denied the delivery of the truck, in question; which was, in fact, delivered to his brother, Avtar Singh. The complainant intentionally concealed the inspection report dated 09.08.2016 and 10.08.2016 conducted by the opposite parties. No commitment to Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 9 replace the truck was ever made. The truck is under warranty and not guarantee. The complainant is not entitled to any brand new truck. All other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Evidence of the Parties
5. To prove his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Manpreet Singh, Director, Ex.R-1/A, along with documents Ex.R-1/1 to Ex.R-1/9.
7. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Lionel Jordan, Manager Legal as Ex.R-2/A, along with document Ex.R-2/1. Contentions of the Parties
8. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 2, as opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex parte. We have also gone through the record as well as written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 2 carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant, in addition to the written arguments, vehemently contended that the defect in the truck, in question, came to the notice of the complainant on the very next day of its purchase i.e. on 17.06.2016 and opposite party No.1 was telephonically informed about the said defects, but nobody turned up to check the same. The complainant wrote letter dated 24.06.2016, Ex.C-2, to opposite party No.2, complaining about the defects in the truck. On 29.06.2016, Vinod Gupta and Rajender Kumar from opposite party No.1 and Subhash Chander from opposite party No.2 visited the Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 10 complainant to check the truck, in question, and they found various defects in the truck. They prepared report, Ex.C-3, and Subhash Chander initially signed on the same, but later on he scored out his signatures over it. The complainant sent legal notice dated 02.07.2016, Ex.C-4, to opposite parties No.1 & 2, asking them to replace the defective truck with a new one and to pay compensation. It was further contended that CD of the communication between Subhash Chander, Engineer of opposite party No.2 and Avtar Singh, brother of the complainant, has also been placed on record as Ex.C-7, which has not been rebutted by opposite parties No.1 & 2. The truck, in question, has been found to be defective from the very first day of its purchase, as it was not bearing any load after loading. In fact, there is manufacturing defect in the same. It was further contended that opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to remove the defects from the truck, in question, and the complainant has suffered financial loss, besides mental tension and harassment. The complainant could not earn his livelihood, by way of self-employment, due to which he could not repay the loan instalments to opposite party No.3, which was charging interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the loan amount. The complainant suffered loss of ₹6,000/- per day, due to non-use of the vehicle, in question, on account of manufacturing defects in it. Thus, it was contended that the complaint be allowed and all the directions, as prayed for in the complaint, be issued to the opposite parties.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2, in addition to the written arguments, vehemently contended that the Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 11 truck, in question, was delivered to the brother of the complainant on 16.06.2016, to his full satisfaction. If there is any defect in the truck, then the same can be rectified, as per warranty policy of opposite party No.2. On the complaint of the complaint, a team of experts visited him and after inspecting the trucks, the defects were rectified. On 10.08.2016, the truck, in question, was taken to Hisar for rechecking, where it was repaired and thereafter it was found to be working properly. There is no cogent evidence to prove that the truck, in question, is having any manufacturing defects. There was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Admittedly, the truck (Tipper), in question, was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1, vide Tax Invoice dated 01.06.2016, Ex.C-1, for ₹31,63,000/-, which was delivered to his brother on 16.06.2016. He got financed the said vehicle from opposite party No.3, to the extent of ₹25,30,000/- and the remaining amount of ₹6,33,000/- was paid by the complainant himself. The complainant alleged that on 17.06.2016, when the truck, in question, was taken to the fields for loading sand in it, the same did not work properly. On the same day, he gave telephonic call to opposite parties No.1 & 2, but nobody turned up to rectify the defects therein. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter dated 24.06.2016, Ex.C-2, to opposite party Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 12 No.2, pointing out the defects in the truck. On 29.06.2016, officials of opposite parties No.1 & 2 visited the complainant and inspected the truck, in question. They prepared report under the heading "MOM", Ex.C-3, which reads as under:
"i) Hinsolial lock - solved.
ii) There is continuous sound noise in Tipper axle on high
speed in gear No.5, 6 & 7.
iii) Pickup drop in load condition-RPM of loaded truck does not increase 1200 onwards and the speed is also not increasing.
iv) Clutch (lower gear) is jerking- Complaint is not solved (clutch is to be checked).
The above said defects have been checked by the Technician.
The above said defects have not solved at site."
This report proves that there were some defects in the truck, which were not removed, despite repairs.
13. The word 'defect' has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act, which reads as under:
(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods."Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 13
14. From bare reading of the above provision of the Act makes it clear that "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. Keeping in view above credentials, the defect is to be ascertained and if such a defect occurs in a newly manufactured vehicle/machine, then the onus, as already said above, is generally upon the manufacturer to prove that it is free from any defect and the defect in the same was not a manufacturing one.
15. It is amply clear from the documents, including Ex.C-3, produced by the complainant on record that the truck, in question, did suffer from the defects of various kinds, which could not be rectified properly. When the said vehicle was used in the fields, it was not working after being loaded with earth and other material. Opposite party No.1 pleaded in Para No.4 of its reply that the complainant for the first time raised the issue on 21.06.2016 that some sound was coming and immediately, Technician, Amit, visited him on 22.06.2016. On 23.06.2016, Vinod Gupta visited the site and checked the truck, in question. On 29.06.2016, a team of Technicians visited the spot and found that there were some minor problems in the truck, which were repairable. However, opposite party No.1 did not mention as to what happened on 22.06.2016 and 23.06.2016 and it only alleged that on 29.06.2016, the complainant did not allow the Technician to touch the truck, in question. Report, Ex.C-3, belies this plea of opposite party No.1. The contention/version of opposite party No.1 is not also Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 14 believable, because when the complainant himself raised the issue of defects in the truck, then why he would stop the officials of opposite parties No.1 & 2 from doing the necessary repairs; especially when he purchased the said truck by raising loan from opposite party No.3, to whom he is to pay regular instalments towards the loan amount by earning his livelihood from the said truck.
16. As already mentioned above, report Ex.C-3 was made by official of opposite party No.2, who after signing the same scored out his signatures over it. This report clearly proves that they could not rectify the defect in the truck, in question. There appears to be some problem in the engine and other parts of the truck, it was having many problems like RPM was not increasing, high noise in rear axle, speed governor defective, clutch was giving jerks etc. It is not expected by the purchaser of a brand new vehicle, that it will suffer inherent defects from the very beginning. In fact, the defects in the truck, in question, are the manufacturing defects, which are beyond repairs. We are of the view that when the officials of the manufacturer themselves inspected the vehicle, vide Ex.C-3, and found that there were defects, which were not repaired, then there is no need to obtain any expert report in the matter.
17. In Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v. Pandit Automotive Ltd. 2008 (2) CPJ 308 (NC), the vehicle started giving trouble within one month of its purchase and the important parts were required to be replaced. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in such case, principle of res ipsa loquitor would apply and the facts would Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 15 speak themselves and there is no need to refer the vehicle to third party for opinion. Thus, refund of the cost of the vehicle, along with interest, was allowed.
18. Similarly, identical issue arose before the Hon'ble National Commission in Hyundai Motors India Ltd. through its authorised signatory, Mr. Abhijit Kumar (Legal and Secretarial) Vs. Affiliated East West Press (Press (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Mr. Sunny Malik, I(2008) CPJ19(NC), in which it was held as follows:-
1. The question which arises for consideration in this case is if a luxury car, namely, Accent Car CRD Diesel Model, gives trouble within one or two months of its purchase, would the consumer be satisfied with such a car? Whether the multi-
national company manufacturing such a car, is justified in not replacing the car or refunding purchase price and instead engaging in protracted litigation?"
2. In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied.Further, in such cases, the manufacturing Company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power.
25. In our opinion, from the admission made by the petitioner it is clear that the vehicle had gone to them on several occasions for repairs. In our view, there is no necessity for a new car to go to work shop 'on several occasions' for repairs within a short span one year of its purchase." Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 16
19. Further in "Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Lachia Setty, I(2008) CPJ151(NC), it has been held that:
12. The undisputed facts of case are that the complainant had purchased Indigo LX Euro vehicle from Concorde Motors Limited an authorised dealer of Tata Motors which manufactures these vehicles and that the buyer had frequently complained to the dealer about the defects in the clutch system and gear box in the transmission system and further that the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the dealer time and again for the repair for which job cards were opened. At no point of time purchaser has given a satisfaction report after repair of the car. There were occasions when the car was not returned after repair on the same day e.g. car was taken to the dealer on 1.4.2004 and was returned on 7.4.2004."
20. Similarly in Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar Mahabirprasad Bhageria & Ors., IV(2011) CPJ548(NC), Hon'ble National Commission held as follows:
11. Now, coming to the merits of the case, District Forum in its order has held:
15. The fact that from the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant on 1.9.2006, defects of one or another nature are cropping up in the vehicle, has been accepted by the respondents in their say. Out of those defects, the defect in horn which was of trivial nature, was removed by the respondents free of cost. After purchase of the vehicle, on 4th day, when the vehicle was taken to Hyderabad the tyre of the vehicle got burst. As contended by the respondents, this may be due to the bad condition of the roads. However, when the complainant made a demand that the cost of the tyre be given to the complainant, no heed was paid to the said Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 17 demand. But, after getting the notice of the present complaint filed before this Forum, the respondents have sent a cheque of Rs.5,500/- and there is no mention about this fact in their say. We have taken of this fact."
21. Recently, in case Hyundai Motors India Ltd. v. Dr. R.V. Lokare & Anr. III (2017) CPJ 340 (NC), manufacturing defects cropped up in the new vehicle, which were not rectified by the opposite party during the warranty period. The car had covered a distance of 25000 kms. Defective car was lying in the garage of the complainant. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble National Commission held that it shall be in the interest of justice and equity that 60% of original price of the car is paid to the complainant, along with interest. In the present case, the brand new vehicle purchased by the complainant started giving problems on the very next date of its purchase and the defects were not repaired, despite making efforts by the officials of opposite parties No.1. Thus, the refund of the entire sale price of vehicle, in question, can be allowed in this case.
22. In the above said judgments, it was clearly laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission that if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. In one of those cases, the vehicle had gone to the dealer/manufacturer for repairs. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that there is no necessity for a new car to go to workshop on several occasions.
23. Admittedly, the complainant invested a sum of ₹31,63,000/- for purchasing the truck (tipper). The delivery of the tipper was given on 16.06.2016 and when on 17.06.2016, it was taken to the field, it did Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 18 not work properly. The opposite parties were immediately informed about it. A team of five persons visited the complainant on 29.06.2016, but they could not repair the same or to remove the defect from the tipper. It clearly proves that the tipper, in question, was having manufacturing defect, as it did not work even for a single day. In such circumstances, the principle of res ipsa loquitor would apply and the facts would speak themselves and there is no need for taking the expert opinion, as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar's case (supra).
24. Due to manufacturing defect therein, he could not earn even a single penny after its purchase. It is the specific case of the complainant that he obtained loan of ₹25,30,000/- from opposite party No.3, who is charging interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the loan amount and the complainant is paying instalments. However, due to non-working of the vehicle due to manufacturing defect therein, he could not earn his livelihood by way of self-employment and, thus, is unable to repay the loan amount to opposite party No.3. The perusal of the evidence produced on record clearly proves that the brand new vehicle, in question, is having manufacturing defects, which are beyond repairs and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the price of the vehicle, along with interest. For the mental agony and harassment suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2, he is entitled to suitable compensation also.
Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 19
25. Opposite party No.3 is a financer, from whom the complainant obtained loan amount of ₹25,30,000/- and the said amount was directly deposited by opposite party No.3 in the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.
26. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed against opposite parties No.1 & 2 and is the same is dismissed against opposite party No.3. The following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 & 2:
i) to refund ₹31,63,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 01.06.2016 till payment.
It is made clear that opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall first pay the due amount to opposite party No.3, in lieu of the loan amount advanced by it to the complainant, if any, and the remaining amount shall be paid to the complainant.
ii) to pay ₹3,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and
iii) to pay ₹33,000/-, as litigation expenses.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to comply with this order within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the compensation amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization. Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2016 20
27. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 07, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)