Orissa

Debagarh

CC/37/2015

Rinarani Majhi, W/o-Late Pradeep Ku. Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

DEOGARH

 

Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member and Smt.Jayanti Pradhan, Member

 

Rinarani Majhi,

W/O – Late Pradeep Kumar Nayak,

At – Women College Road,

PO/Dist. – Deogarh.                                                      …        Complainant.

 

1. Senior Divisional Manager,                                                                                                                                                                    Life Insurance Corporation of India,                                                                                                                                              Ainthapali, Sambalpur.
2. Manager(Claims)                                                                                                                                                                           L.I.C.Corporation of India,                                                                                                                                                                      Divisional Office, Sambalpur At/PO/Dist. - Sambalpur
3. Manager, LIC of India                                                                                                                                                                                Sambalpur Branch – II                                                                                                                                                                     At/PO/Dist. - Sambalpur                                         …        Opposite Parties.

 

CD Case No.37/2015

Date of hearing 18.07.2016               Date of Order 19.07.2016

               Counsel for the parties               :

               For the Complainant                  :         Nemo

               For the Opposite Parties             :         Shri Pramathesh Guru, Advocate.

O R D E R

 

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER –  The genus of the complaint lies in the fact that death claim by and under Insurance Policy was repudiated by the Insurer on the ground of suppression of material facts. Sucistinctly facts of the case, as averred by the complainant, Rinarani Majhi, wife and nominee of Deceased Life Assured ( in short DLA), Pradeep Kumar Nayak, resident of Women College Road, PO / Dist. Deogarh is as follows:

1. Being motivated by an agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India, DLA Pradeep Kumar Nayak, from among different kinds of Insurance Policies opted to go for the policy named New Bima Gold, Plan/Term: 179-20 and thereafter, said agent made him to sign all the documents and forms and took the premium amount.
2. A policy document bearing No.592225233 was handed over to him after a few days in which the date of commencement of policy, date of commencement of risk under the policy, and sum assured were being mentioned 16.12.2009, 16.12.2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. In addition Death Benefit sum was assured under the main Plan and monthly instalment (premium) was mentioned to be Rs.417/-  and date of maturity of the policy as16.12.2039.
3. DLA died on 30.11.2012 at District Head Quarter Hospital, Deogarh leaving behind the widow, the complainant and two unmarried daughters. Complainant being the Nominee under the said policy claimed the benefits of the policy before the OPs submitting all the required relevant documents and forms duly filled in on 28.2.2014. She requested the OPs through her letters of dated 20.06.2014, 28.07.2014, 05.06.2014 and 12.05.2014.
4. The complainant received a letter of repudiation wherein it was mentioned that it has been decided to repudiate all liabilities under the policy of her husband on account of the  fact that DLA withheld material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance with the OP. And LIC is not liable for any payment under the policy and all moneys that have been paid in the consequent thereof stand forfeited.
5. That, challenging the said letter, the complainant knocked the doors of Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide Case No – BHU - I - 029 – 1415 – 0167 and her petition was dismissed on 13.05.2015.
6. While challenging, reasons of repudiation not being sufficient, the complainant submitted that such action of the OPs is illegal and arbitrary and they are trying to avoid their liabilities showing baseless grounds and at length she prays to direct the OPs to pay the claim amount alongwith compensation.

2. In response to the allegation labeled, answering OPs have stated in their Written Version as follows:

1. While challenging the case not being maintainable in the eye of law as well as in fact and having no valid cause of action against the OP, it has been contended that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon’ble forum as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail  undue advantage. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed U/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. Admitting the fact of issuance of Policy No.592225233 from Sambalpur Branch Office – II of the Corporation in favour of late Pradeep Kumar Nayak with sum assured of Rs.1, 00,000/-, Date of commencement 16.12.2009 under Table & Term 179-20, Premium @ 417/- per month , Mode of Payment – Monthly Salary Savings Scheme ( in short SSS) and date of maturity on 16.12.2029 OPs have contended that  the averments made in para 4 of the complaint petition that the DLA had procured the policy after fully understanding the benefits is not within the knowledge of the O.P . Being a public sector entity, L.I.C of India/ OPs has to follow the prudent business practices. The agents are explaining the features of various plans to the customers before receiving the proposal for a new policy.
3. Claiming LIC being a premier financial organization safeguarding the public money with utmost security and the public in general and crores of its bonafide policy holders repose confidence on its prompt, efficient and courteous service. It has been contended further that LIC is just and right in setting the claim under the policy in question and there is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint petition.
4. The avernments made in para 7 of the petition is true except to the title of the nominee in records. As per policy records of Policy No.592225233 , DLA had mentioned Reenarani Nayak , relationship – wife as nominee of the said policy .
5. Admitting the averment made in para 8 of the complaint petition, OPs in response to the allegations made in para 9 of the complaint petition, humbly submitted that as per prevailing rule of the corporation if the duration of the policy is less than 3 years , it is called an Early Claim and necessary investigation are made before admission of the claim for payment . In the instant case as the policy was run for less than 3 years, as per rule investigation was done and treatment particulars for 3 years prior to date of risk were called for from the claimant.
6. That, while denying the averment made in para 10 of the complaint petition,  declaring it to be false OPs have submitted that the decision to repudiate the claim has been taken carefully considering all relevant facts.

1.   That during the course of investigation which is mandatory in case of Early Claim, it came to O.Ps knowledge that the deceased life assured was a physically handicapped person and was getting physically handicap allowance from his employer i.e. Sub-Collector , Deogarh. However while proposing the policy he did not disclose the facts about his physical disability in the proposal from in Clause No.11 (vi).
2.   Had he disclosed the above facts the policy would not have been accepted ordinarily. Further it would have drawn many medical requirements like CNS Questionnaire, Deformity Questionnaire etc. and underwriting authority would have been changed.
3. All “Physically handicap” cases are sent to Divisional Officer and / or Zonal Office for underwriting. It is therefore, evident that the DLA had made deliberate mis-statement and withheld material information from LIC of India regarding health at the time of affecting the assurance.
4. In such circumstances Clause 6 of the Policy Condition very well came into play. As per the said clause, if it is found that any untrue or incorrect statements is contained in the proposal / personal statement, declaration and connected documents or any material information is withheld, then in very such case but subject to provision of Section 45 of the Insurance Act-1938, wherever applicable, this policy shall be void and all claims to any benefit in virtue hereof shall cease and all monies that have been paid is consequence hereof shall belong to the corporation.
5.           Further DLA was suffering from Cancer as revealed from claimants statement in claim from A and certificate of identity and burial i.e. Claim Form C ultimately died at District Headquarter Hospital, Deogarh due to bone cancer .
6. Insurance being a contract of Uberrimae fidae (utmost good faith), the proposer is duty bound to reveal all the relevant material facts to the insurer in order to avail the insurance policy. Thus, misrepresentation and suppression of the material facts regarding the health of the DLA gives the valid ground for rejection of the claim.

(h) In the context, the OPs have drawn our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between Satwant Kaur Sandhu –versus-New India Assurance Company Ltd (2009)  8 SCC 316. Honble Apex court observed that the expression “material fact“ is to be understood in general terms to mean as any act which could influence the judgement of a prudent insurer, in deciding whether to accept the risk or not. If the proposer has knowledge of such fact, he is obliged to disclose it particularly while answering questions in the proposal form. Any inaccurate answer will entitled the insurer to repudiate their liability because there is clear presumption that any information sought for in the proposal form is material for the purpose of entering in to a contract of insurance which bases on the principle of utmost faith ubnerrimae fides. Good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the party privately knows to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and his believing the contrary. In (United India Insurance Co. Ltd – versus- M.K.J. Corporation (1996-6 SCC 428), it has also been emphasized that it is not for the proposer to determine whether the information sought for is material for the purpose of the policy or not. Of course, obligation to disclose extends only to facts which are known to the applicant and not to what he ought to have known.

(i) That, admitting the contentions made in para 11 of the complaint petition OPs have contended that after considering the above facts, Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar had dismissed the complaint petition filed by  the present compliant vide their order dtd.13.05.2015.

(j) That, to summarise and in response to the avernments made in Para 12,13 and 14 of the complaint petition , O.Ps humbly submited that there was no deficiency of service by this O.P nor perpetrated unfair trade practice by non-setting the claim of the complainant rather this O.P has rightly repudiated the claim in legal manner to protect the public money as a whole .

4. The case was listed for Hearing on 17.02.16, 08.03.2016, 22.03.2016, 05.04.2016, 26.04.2016, 18.05.2016, 24.05.2016 which could not held as neither OPs nor their Counsel appeared/attended the proceeding except on 18.05.2016 interrupted due to Cease-Work called on by Deogarh District Bar Association and as such on 08.06.2016 partly heard the complainant. The Complainant had filed one notarized document showing handwriting of her deceased husband the Deceased Life Assured (in short DLA) on 24.05.2016 .Further, Complainant submitted during such part hearing that an agent of OP (LIC Company) had been to her house to push up for a policy and being motivated, her husband went for a policy. The Agent made him to sign on some blank forms which her husband signed and paid cash of an amount, which presently she could not recollect. She also identified the signature of her late husband on the proposal form while she said the handwriting in filling the particulars of the form not to be her husband’s. With this she concluded her case. Not to be prejudiced, the case was listed for hearing the case of the OPs on 22.06.2016. On 22.06.2016, 27.06.2016, 05.07.2016, 11.07.2016 and on 18.07.2016 hearing of OPs  was conducted. Learned Advocate for Ops stressed vehemently upon the answer to question 11((vi) & 11(ix) and consequent thereto suppression of material facts justly resulting in repudiation. He urged in view of the facts of the instant case, to dismiss the complaint petition and thus case of the Ops was submitted to be closed.

5. Having heard of the submission of the complainant and categorically examining the documents filed we find as here under:

1. Firstly, whether the case of the complainants is maintainable in the eye of law and on the facts available on records : Sec.2(o) of the  has defined “Service” as hereunder 

"service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing, construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;”

Sec.2(d)(ii) of the Act reads as :

“2.(d) "consumer" means any person who-

(i)       

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose;

Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-clause (i), "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;”

Sec.2(e) of the Act reads as :

"consumer dispute" means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint;”

Hence on  conjoint reading of Sec.2(d)(ii) , Sec.2(e) and Sec.2(o) we are of the firm opinion that Complainant is a consumer and there exists a consumer dispute and as such maintainability of the case is neither bad in the eye of law nor ultra virus on the facts available on records.

2. Complaint suffers from no lacuna as to Jurisdiction and cause of action since Sec.11of the Act while dealing with Jurisdiction of the District Forum. in sub section(2)(a) and(2)(c) lays that “(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,

(a)   the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or “

(b)   xxx

(c)    the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

            Cause of action is not defined in any legislation. As cause of action is a bundle of facts, the fact that has given rise to action against other party is called the cause of action. In Narayan Givaji Vrs. Gurumath Goud [ AIR 1939,Bombay] Bombay High Court have given the meaning of cause of action as  has hereunder:

“A cause of action briefly means ‘ right and the infringement of that right’ where a party has an undoubted right and that right is infringed, a cause of action at once accrues to him.”

            In the case of M/S- Monto Motors Ltd. Through its Director Vrs M/S- Shri Sai Motors through Shri G.Venkatesulu & Another [ 2013(3) CPR 182 (NC)] National Commission is of opinion that complaint can be filed within the local limits of the District Forum in which jurisdiction cause of action arises.

3. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 reads as hereunder:

47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant :- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the hand writing of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.

Explanation :- A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.

In the instant case Complainant, wife of DLA, identified the signature on the Proposal Form adduced by OPs admitting and claiming to have been submitted by the DLA to procure a Life Insurance Policy, to be of her deceased husband and denied that the rest writtings on the Proposal Form to had been written by her husband. None otherthan wife can be most acquainted person with the handwriting of DLA. Further the said  notarized document showing handwriting of Complainant’s deceased husband the Deceased Life Assured (in short DLA) [Exbt.P/23] has been testified by  his Employer. Thus beyond doubt it is a relevant document. In accordance with Sec. 73 of the said Act, which reads as “ 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved :- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.”-  we compared hand writing on Proposal Form and on the notarized filed document [Exbt.P/23] and found that both handwritings are not of the same person. Also, hand writings of the signature on the Proposal Form and filled in particulars in that very Form are not of the same author. So we believe in the averment of complainant in Para – 3 of the complain petition and oral submission made by the Complainant during hearing and are of view that the agent has made the DLA sign over the blank Proposal Form and then have filled it up at his sweet will and submitted the Proposal Form in the Company’s Office. At no point of time OPs have filed any document or have stated that the Proposal Form alongwith the First Premium was received by them personally from the DLA. Under this premises it will be prejudiced to say that DLA has concealed any material fact himself applying hid own mind and reasoning.

4. On examination of the Physical Handicap Certificate/ Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Sambalpur vide letter No.13719 of dated 17/12/1990 we find entry in serial 4 – Type of disability :- O.H.; serial 5 – Nature of disability :- Post Polio residual Paralysis of right lower limb with equino cavus foot; serial 6 – Percentage of disability :- 50% in relation to Right Lower Limb. It is very much evident that the physical disability the DLA had at the time of initiating the proposal for insurance policy is neatly visible to naked eye and hardly this can escape from the motivating LIC Agent, one Shri Kishore Kumar Sahu with License No.095819. For certain time if we believe that the Proposal Form was filled in by DLA himself applying his own mind and reasoning the Agent should have either objected to the answer ‘NO’ & ‘GOOD’ to question No. 11(vi) & 11(ix) respectively or should have intimated the fact to OPs since  regulation 8.(1)(g) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Licensing of Insurance Agents) Regulations, 2000  requires/urges him to do so, which reads as hereunder:

“ 8. Code of Conduct. (1) Every person holding a license, shall adhere to the code of conduct specified below :-

1. Every insurance agent shall, 

xxxx

(g) bring to the notice of the Insurer any adverse habits or income inconsistency of the prospect, in the form of report ( called “Insurance Agent’s Confidential Report”) along with every proposal submitted to the Insurer, and any material fact that may adversely affect the underwriting decision of the insurer as regards acceptance of the proposal, by making all reasonable enquiries about the prospect;

(ii)       No insurance agent shall,

            xxxxx

(c) induce the prospect to submit wrong information in the proposal form or documents submitted to the insurer for acceptance of the proposal;”

5. We reproduce here similar provision embodied in the Life Insurance Corporation of India Agents Regulations, 1972, framed by the LIC, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Regulation 8 dealt with functions of agents and clauses (3) and (4) of the said Regulation provide as follows :

"(1) Every agent shall solicit and procure new life insurance business which shall not be less than the minimum prescribed in these regulations and shall endeavor to conserve the business already secured.

(2) Inprocuring new life insurance business, an agent shall :

[a]  take in to consideration the needs of the proposers for life insurance and their capacity to pay premiums ;

[b] make all reasonable enquiries in regard to the lives to be insured before recommending proposals for acceptance, and bring to the notice of the Corporation any circumastances which may adversely affect the risk to be underwritten ;

[c] take all reasonable steps to ensure that the age of the life assured is admitted at the commencement of the policy ; and

[d] not interfere with any proposal introduced by another agent.”

 

6. We quote here some provisions of Indian Contract Act,1872 relevant to Agents & Principal.

“ Section 186. Agents authority may be expressed or implied.

The authority of an agent may be expressed or implied See, however, the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), s.33.See also the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), Sch.I, Order III, rule 4.

Section 187.Definitions of express and implied authority                               

An authority is said to be express when it is given by words spoken or written.An authority is said to be implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case; and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case.

Section 188.Extend of agents authority

An agent having an authority to do an act has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act. An agent having an authority to carry on a business has authority to do every lawful thing necessary for the purpose, or usually done in the course, of conducting such business.

Section 237.Liability of principal inducing belief that agents unauthorized acts were authorized

When an agent has, without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations, if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent's authority.”

 

The only question is whether the LIC can be held liable on the basis of the doctrine of apparent authority in view of Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act. By its conduct in receiving the First Premium through its agents We hold that the doctrine of apparent authority underlying Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act can be invoked. Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 reads as hereunder:

Section45.Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis statement after two years

No policy of the life insurance effected before the commencement of this Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act and no policy of life insurance effected after the coming into force of this Act, shall, after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected, be  called in question by an  insurer on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance or in any report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend of the insured, or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy, was  inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement a. was  on a material matter or suppressed facts  which it was material to  disclose and that it was fraudulently made] by the policy-holder and that the policy -holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false b.or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose:

b. Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the insurer from calling for proof of age at any time if he is entitled to do so, and no policy shall be deemed to be called in question merely because the terms of the policy are adjusted on subsequent proof that the age of the life insured was incorrectly stated in the proposal.

Honble Supreme Court in case of P.C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, LIC of India (2008) 1 SCC 321 while holding as under:-

“Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (which prescribes that a life insurance policy cannot be called in question on ground of misstatement after two years) postulates repudiation of insurance policy within a period of two years. There are three conditions for application of second part of Section 45 of the Insurance Act which are (a) the statement must be on a material matter or must suppresses facts which it was material to disclosed; (b) the suppression must be fraudulently made by the policy-holder; and (c) the policy-holder must have known at the time of making the statement that it was false or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose.

Misstatement by itself was not material for repudiation of the policy unless the same is material in nature. But, a deliberate wrong answer which has a great bearing on the contract of insurance, if discovered may lead to the policy being vitiated in law. the purpose for taking a policy of insurance is not very material. It may serve the purpose of social security but then the same should not be obtained with a fraudulent act by the insured. Proposal can be repudiated if a fraudulent act is discovered.”

In the instant case misstatement as to bodily deformity was beyond the reach of the DLA as it was made by different person apparently the Agent of LIC, who being bounden by law to report it to the Insurer had not acted in accordance with Law and since the onus probandi, in cases of fraudulent suppression of material facts rests heavily on party alleging fraud namely the insurer, LIC has failed to prove that DLA with fraudulent intention have suppressed his physical deformity by non adducing the   Insurance Agent’s Confidential Report. Had it been adduced, mater would have been different as in that case DLA’s intention could have been resolved with accuracy. Furthermore, mere concealment of some facts will not amount to concealment of material facts, DLA cannot be said to have hide the material fact with fraudulent intention.

7. The Honble Apex Court in M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 734 has held as under :

It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the Insurance Company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally.

Evidently, there has been a breach of this clear principle of uberrimae fides. xxxxxx

 This again testifies our finding. Shri Kishore Kumar Sahu, Agent, acting on behalf of  LIC, had done nothing to disclose the bodily deformity of DLA which he had ought to have done and thereby have done the act of breach of good faith. Hence How alone the complainant be punished for ?

I.  Further, we examined the document filed by the complainant [Exbt.P/] Prescription made in favour of DLA by DR.Ranajit Kar, Consultant Clinical & Radiation Oncologist, Cancer Specialist of HCG Panda Curie Cancer Hospital,Telengapentha, Cuttack. DLA was detected of suffering from Metastatic Adeno Carcinoma of Left Neck of Femur i.e. Bone Cancer in common understanding which lead DLA to death. Suppressed material fact is Post Polio Paralysis of Right Lower Limb is not the cause of death.

J.  Honourable Insurance Ombudsman, Odisha have erred in determining the petition of the Complainant not by taking into consideration (i) Proposal Form being filled up by Agent and (ii) Confidential Report required to be furnished by Agent to LIC of India, which is mandatory.  

 

6. We are of firm opinion that LIC in the instant case, cannot wash off its liability by repudiating the claim of the complainant. We mention here in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vrs. Smt. Asha Goel, I(2001) SLT 89 AIR 2001 SC 549 Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed that repudiation of a policy issued by the Life Insurance Corporation should be one of extreme care and caution. It should not be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner. Repudiation here by LIC is deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to relief under the Act. Hence I order as under:

O R D E R

Complaint Petition is allowed. The OPs representing Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd jointly and severally are directed to pay the complainant, widow and Nominee of DLA Pradeep Kumar Naik the sum assured amount i.e. Rs.1,00.000 (Rupees one lakh) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.11.07 till the payment is made. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) as compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as amount of cost of litigation within 45 days from today failing which the complainant would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% on Rs.55,000/- from today till the amounts are actually paid in due course of law.

Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties keeping acknowledgement of the receipt and date thereof.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 19th day of July, 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.

I     agree

 

 

MEMBER (W)                                                                                           MEMBER 

 

Dictated and Corrected

          by me.

 

  MEMBER