DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 242 of 12-09-2018

Decided on : 30-11-2021

M/s Punjab Fusion Pvt. Limited Registered Office at Arya Samaj Chowk, BATHINDA. Through Sh. Amrit Pal Singh Kohli duly Authorized Director.

........Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MCB No. Z-2-11786/001, Ist Floor, Natha Singh Tower, 100 Ft. Road, Near Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda 151 001 through its Divisional Manager

2. Yes Bank Ltd., Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda 151 001 through its Branch Manager

    

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. S M Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 1.

Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, for OP No.2.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. M/s. Punjab Fusion Pvt. Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant firm is Pvt. Ltd. Company and Sh. Amrit Pal Singh Kohli is duly Authorized Director of the complainant Firm and the Complainant is the Regd. Owner of the Gas Tanker Regd. No. PB-03-V-0613. The said tanker is comprehensively insured (Package Policy) with opposite party No. 1 vide Insurance Policy No. 2004003116P116699547 w.e.f. 11-03-2017 to 10-03-2018 and is duly hypothecated with opposite party No. 2 but since no instalment due as such, opposite party No. 2 is performa necessary party.

3. It is alleged that on 31.07.2017 at about 3.00 a.m the said Tanker met with an accident at G.T. Road, Near Samana (Karnal). At that time, the Vehicle was being driven by Sumare Singh. In this accident the Vehicle was badly damaged. The driver Sumare Singh is duly licensed from Distt. Transport Authority with certificate of Hazardous goods and he duly passed the same. The DTO Bathinda office already clarified that the Transport DL is the valid license to drive any type of vehicle even the said truck and there is no provision in the software of the Distt. Transport office to mark special endorsement of Hazardous goods and they also clarified that the certificate is sufficient to drive Hazardous goods vehicle. The DL of Sumare Singh and Certificate of Hazardous Goods Vehicles duly verified by opposite party No. 1 and found genuine. The complainant lodged claim immediately with opposite party No.1 and they appointed Mr. Shamsher Chand as Spot Surveyor on the same day i.e. 31.07.2017 at the Spot and he visited the spot and surveyed. Mr. Shamsher Chand Spot Surveyor charged Spot Survey Fee to the tune of Rs. 2678/- from the complainant. The above said Spot Surveyor issued his Spot Survey report on 05.08.2017 but no copy of the same was ever supplied to the complainant although the same is mandatory.

4. It is further alleged that thereafter damaged vehicle was shifted with Workshops at Bathinda by spending Rs.6,000/- under the instructions of opposite party No.1 through their Spot Surveyor. The opposite party No.1 appointed Final Surveyor Mr. Gurjinder Singh of M/s G. S. Associates and repair work was started in his presence. The complainant Spent Rs.1,34,000/- on the repair of the said vehicle and the said amount was spent by him from his pocket. All the original bills have already been supplied to opposite party No.1. Through final surveyor. At the time of final survey the Surveyor of the opposite party No.1 obtained Signatures of the complainant on Blank Claim Form, Different 5-6 Blank papers, Blank Vouchers, Blank Consent Form and Blank Full and Final Voucher (Dated 02.10.2017) and gave assurance that full claim will be paid.The Surveyors and opposite party No.1 never sent any Spot or Final Survey to the complainant, although the same is mandatory under the regulations of IRDA. The Final Surveyor prepared his report on 07.10.2017 with his own mind and against the law and rules of IMT and Insurance Policy.

5. It also alleged that complainant inquired many times regarding his claim from the office of opposite party No.1 through E-mails and personal visits but the opposite party No.1 did not gave any satisfactory reply and sitting over the claim of the complainant without any reason. The opposite party No. 1 did not even issue No Claim Letter and the same has been issued after filing RTI Application by complainant. The total claim amount of Rs.1,42,678/- i.e. Rs.1,34,000/- spent on repair and Rs.2,678/- paid to spot surveyor as fee plus Rs.6,000/- paid as Towing charges are till date pending with opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 did not even pay the report of the Surveyor which was prepared under their directions. Due to the Non Payment of the above said claim the complainant has suffered mental agony and pains for which he claims damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

6. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party No. 1 to pay Total claim amount of Rs. 1,42,678/- i.e. Rs.1,34,000/- as repair charges plus Rs.2,678/- spot survey fee plus Rs.6,000/- spent as Towing charges. The complainant also claims interest @18% P.A. from the date of loss till payment in addition to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

7. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised legal objections that complaint has not been filed by duly authorized and competent person. No legal, valid power of attonrey or resolution of Board of Directors of complainant company has been produced. Moreover no certificate of registitered and memorandum of articles, articles of association of company has been produced. That this Commission has got no jursidciton to try, entertain and decide this case; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file this case; the complaint is not mintianable in the present form or manner; the complainangt has knowingly, willfully violated the terms and condition of insurance policy; there is no deficiency on the part of oposite party No.1; this complaint is bseless , wrong, vague, self contradictory, illegal, against facts ; the complainant is estopped from filing this complaint due to its acts, conducts, admissions, omissions and acquiescence; complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands; the alleged driving licence of driver is not authorised to drive said tanker which is HVG and containing hazardous goods.

8. It is pleaded that the complainant is liable to prove that alleged Om Sai Motor Diring Training School, Noida, was duly Licenced and duly authorized School, as per Central Government, State Government and Local Body rules, regulations, provisions, instructions, for imparting training to persons to drive vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. Such School is not only required to get approval vide Central Government notification rather also requires to obtain Licence in form 11 from concerned Regional Transport Officer for imparting such training. The complainant has not produced any such record or copy of notification and certificate on the file. Merely having such certificate of training from such driving School is not, sufficient but there also should have been got made an endorsement on the heavy goods vehicle driving Licence, made from concerned Transport Authorities of the State. Merely by saying that there is no provision in the Computer system of DTO to make such endorsement is not sufficient, as such endorsement can also be obtained through manual process. Because the mandatory provision provided under the Act and Rules are liable to be followed and any violation of the same, would disentitle such person to drive heavy vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous Goods. Thus the opposite party No. 1 has rightly rejected the claim in hand of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service of the opposite party No.1.

9. The further legal objections are that the complainant is not consumer under the 'Act' : complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; surveyors appointed by opposite party No.1 to report about the alleged loss after making proper survey and investigation, had made proper inquiry, surey and investigtion and reported that the drvier of said vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the vehicle used for carrying the Hazardous Goods as per section 14 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 read with rule 9 and 132 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989. That complainant has alleged in complaint that the surveyors have obtained signatures of complainant on blank claim form, blank vouchers, blank consent form, different five-six blank papers by using some coercive methods for full and final settlement of claim. In this way, complainant has allegedly, indirectly made the allegations of forgery and fraud. That previously too, complainant lodged a claim against loss dated 19-10-2017 in which complainant submtited driving licence of Rajinder Parshad driver of the insured vehicle, in whose DL there is a specific endorsement of hazardous vehicle in it; complainant has not produced requisite documents alongwith complaint; as per Section 92 of Evidence Act no oral evidence against the statue or contents of document can be given or admissible. When the mandatory Provisions of M.V. Act and rules are very much clear and specific then question of leading any oral evidence regarding the applicability or operation of said provisions does not arise at all nor is permissible under any law.

10. On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that Gas Tanker No. PB-03-V-0613 was insured as GCV Public Carrier other than 3 Wheeler Package Policy No.2004003116P116699547 for the period 11-03-2017 to 10-03-2018 subject to its terms and conditons. It is admitted that complainant sent intimtion regarding accident of vehicle in quesiton and that suffering of some damage. Therefter complainant also furnished motor claim form dated 04-08-2017.

11. It is pleaded that driver of heavy goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, should be qualified and having taken training from duly authorized and competent driving school for driving the same and an endorsement regrading the same should have been got made by such driver, on his legal, valid driving licence. But admittedly no such training certificate was produced or given by the alleged driver to concerned transport authorities along with his original driving licence nor any such endorsement has been got made and this fact was well within the knowledge of owner of the vehicle/insured. Hence, the complainant has knowingly and willfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question. It is specifically denied that there is no provision in the office of DTO Bathinda to make special endorsement of hazardous goods in the driving licence. The alleged statements made by any clerk or official of DTO office, does not bind the opposite party in any manner nor can supersede or set aside or repeal the statutory provisions of law enshrined in M.V Act, its rules, regulations and instructions.

12. It is pleaded that the complainant has not been able to prove whether alleged Om Sai Training School Noida was competent to impart any such training and issue any such legal, valid training certificate and then to prove whether they have actually issued any such certificate. The complainant has also to prove that alleged driver had submitted that alleged training certificate to the office of DTO/RTO for making endorsement of same in his HTV licence. It is proved that the alleged driver was not having legal,valid ,proper driving driving licence with mandatory endorsement entitling him to drive such hazardous goods carrying vehicle. The claim of complainant has been genuinely rejected after making due and proper consideration in the matter. It is further alleged that driver Sumare Singh as per records produced by complainant is permanent resident of village Khera Fauja Singh, Jalandhar and as such endorsement if any was to be got made by said driver from DTO/RTO Jalandhar and not from Bathinda and as such, the alleged statements of staff of DTO office Bathinda in alleged other MACT cases, does not carry any value or effect nor are binding in this case. Even the complainant and its sister conern have poroduced driving licence of their another driver having required mandaory endorsement on the driving licence regrding hazardous goods trining and as such the complainant cannot take the plea that there is no provison in the software of DTO to mke special required endorsement of Hazardous goods training.

13. It is admitted that complinnt had given intimtion to opposite prty No.1 and therefter lodged claim vide claim form dated 04-08-2017 and Shamsher Chand was appointed as surveyor who made spot inspection and said surveyor has claimed his survey fee vide bill dated 05-08-2017 for Rs, 2678/- from opoiste partyNo.1 and has not reported that he has receied this fee from complainant as alleged by complaiant. Even the complainant has also not supplied any copy of such receipt alleged to have been issued by above said surveyor. The sot surveyor prepared his report dated 05-08-2017 and only therafter final report was sought. It is admitted that the vehicle in question was got repaired at Bathinda, but it is specifically denied that the complainant spent Rs, 1,34,000/- for repair of the same, rather as per the report of surveyor Gurjinder Singh of M/s GS Associates has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs, 59,200/- as per the terms and conditons of insurance policy. As legally claim in question could have not been paid, hence, it was repudiated by opposite party No.1 and complainant was informed vide registered letter dated 27-07-2018 which is self explanatory. The claim was duly investigated and considered without any intentional delay and claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 27-07-2018 on legal and valid ground after proper requisite consideration, by competent authorities of opposite party No.1 as driver of vehicle in question was not having legal, valid and proper driving licence to drive the alleged vehicle as there was no mandatory endorsement of hazardous goods training certificate on alleged DI, of driver, from concerned Transport Authority. It is specifically denied that there is no provision of endorsement of Hazardous goods in transport office, as the complainant itself had produced DL with such endorsement and obtained claim. The claim in question has been repudiated as per law, on the basis of facts and documents. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

14. The opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply raising legal objections that the complaint has not sought any relief against the replying opposite party, rather it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that oposite party No. 2 has been impladed as a performa opposite party as the vehicle is hypoticated with it and that the comlainant has no loucs standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against reply opposite party.

15. On merits, opposite party No.2 after denying all other averments of the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

16. In order to prove the claim, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amritpal Kohli dated 12-09-2018 ( Ex.C-1), photocopy of resolution ( Ex.C-2) photo copy of RC ( Ex.C-3), photocopy of insurance certificate ( Ex.C-4), photocopy of DL ( Ex.C-5), photocopy of certificate ( Ex.C-6), photocopy of IMT GR-9 contaning 2 pages ( Ex.C-7) photocopyof letter (Ex.C-8) photocopies of bills and estimates (Ex.C-9 to C-13), photocopy of letter (Ex.C-14) and photocopy of statements (Ex.C-15 & C-16).

17. In order to rebut the evidence led by the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh dated 05-11-2018( Ex.OP1/1), photocopy office note ( Ex.OP1/2), photocopy of letter (Ex.OP1/3,) photocopy of consent letter (Ex.OP1/4), Photocopy of policy ( Ex.OP1/5), photocopy of survey report (Ex.OP1/6), photocopy of survey fee bill (Ex.OP1/7), photocopy of policy (Ex.OP1/8) and photocopy of assessmemt ( Ex.OP1/9).

18. The opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence, photocopy of account statement (Ex.OP2/1), photocoy of schedule of charges (Ex.OP2/2) and affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Ahuja dated 29-10-2018 (Ex.OP2/3).

19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record .

20. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant is the owner of vehicle in question and the vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 1 w.e.f. 11-03-2017 to 10-3-2018. It is also not disputed that vehicle met with an accident on 31-7-2017 and intimation was given to the opposite party No. 1. The surveyor was appointed. Loss was got assessed. The complainant submitted claim and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.

21. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to prove that driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence or he has not obtained training for hazardous goods vehicles. The complainant has also produced on record copy of Training Certificate of Driver Sumare Singh (Ex.C-6) and photocopy of DL of Sumare Singh as Ex. C-5. As per this certificate, the driver Sumare Singh has obtained training from 6-4-2017 to 08-04-2017. There is nothing to show that this certificate was found fake. Therefore, it is proved that driver Sumare Singh has obtained training also and is holding valid licence (Ex. C-6). No separate licence is required to be issued for different vehicle as per Motor Vehicle Act also. As such, complainant is not liable for any breach of insurance term and insurance company is liable to pay insurance claim to complainant.

22. To support these submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has cited following case law which are summarized as under :-

    (i) 2020 (2) CPJ 415 NC UIIC Vs Prahallad Rai (ii) FAQ No. 3295 of 2016 decoded on 21-5-2019 P&H HC, Balwant Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz (iii) FAO No. 8253 of 2017 decided on 30-01-2019 P&H HC Hardeep Singh Vs. UIIC (iv) FAO 1210 of 2014 decided on 26-3-2018 P&H HC, NIV Vs. Harbans Kaur (v) 2004 (1) CPJ 22 SC, UIIC Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers (vi) Jitendra Kumar Vs. OIC SC Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2003 decided on 17-7-2003 (vii) NIC Vs. Mata Naina Devi NC Revision petition No. 805 of 2016 decided on 12-5-2017 (viii) UIIC Vs. Sabo Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020 decided on 18-01-2021 Rajasthan High Court (ix) 2008 (4) CPJ 1 SC NIC Vs Nitin Khandewal (x) 2015 (4) CPJ 426 NC Jitendrainh Vs. Iffco Tokio (xi) 2016 (2) CPJ 2 C (CN) Rajesh Bajaj Vs Bajaj Allianz GIC (xii) 2007 (1) CPJ 341 NC, NIA Vs. Jhankar Singh (xiii) 2008 ACJ 516 NIC Vs. Ramasamy (xiv) 2017 ACJ 1386 NIC Vs. Savita Katiyar (xv) 2015 (4) TAC 31 UIIC Vs. Seema (xvi) 2015 ACJ 132 UIIC Vs. A Verlaxmi (xvii) 2018 ACJ 1462 Vijayakumar Vs. Kalpana (xviii) FAO 4535 of 2014 NIA Vs Kanta Devi.

23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that there is no illegality in repudiating the claim. The complainant has admitted that vehicle in question is a gas tanker. Admittedly, the gas is flamable and hazardous. Therefore, only person having special training for driving the vehicle carrying flamable and hazardous goods was entitled to drive the vehicle. The complainant is also aware of the fact that only driver having special training is competent to drive the vehicle. The complainant has produced on record certificate got issued from District G B Nagar (Ex. C-6). The driver of heavy goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, should be qualified and having taken training from duly authorized and competent driving school for driving the same and an endorsement regrading the same should have been got made by such driver, on his legal,valid driving licence. But admittedly no such training certificate was produced or given by the alleged driver to concerned transport authorities along with his original driving licence nor any such endorsement has been got made and this fact was well within the knowledge of owner of the vehicle/insured. Hence, he has knowingly and willfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question.

24. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has relied upon the following authorities :

    (i) 2018 (2) Recent Civil Reports 42 SC Pappu & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba (ii) 2019 (4) Accident and Compensation Cases 409 UIIC Vs. Saminuddin & Ors (iii) 2016 (4) JKJ 36 UIIC Vs Pawan Sumbly and Ors (iv) 2019 (1) TNMAC 105 Karnataka High Court Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shabana and Ors (v) 1999 (4) Recent Civil Reports 111 SC OIC Vs. Sony Cheriyan (vi) 2003 (3) CPJ 633 Chandigarh State Commission Sukhbir Singh Vs. OIC (vii) 2003(3) CPJ 125 Prabhakar Transporter Vs. National Insurance Co. (viii) 2008(3) CPJ 439 OIC Vs. Surendra Kumar Jain (ix) 2008(3) Recent Apex Judgement (RAJ) 215 G M Haryana Roadways Vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr (x) 2010(84) ACJ 1912 Nagamani Vs. Singarabvelu (xi) 2012 (3) CPJ 492 NC NIC Vs. S Amirtharaj (xii) 2013 Latest HLJ (HP) 705 Jayanti Gas Service Vs. NIC (xiii) FAO 420002912 (O&M) decided on 18-2-2014 Sajjan Singh & another Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others (P&H High Court) (xiv) 2012 (2) CPR 389 Balwinder Kaur Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr (NC) (xv) 2015 (4) PLR 619 Hanuman Singh Vs. Sona Devi (xvi) 2016 (4) JKJ 36 UIIC Vs. Pawan Sumbly & Ors (xvii) 2017 (5) JKJ 399 NIC Vs. Mehraj-ud-din-Bagwa & Ors (xviii) 2017 (5) Recent Civil Reports 370 Joginder Kaur & Ors Vs. Mangal & Ors (xix) 2017(6) Allahabad Daily Judgement 25 Baburam Verma Vs. Additional District Judge No. 9 Sitapur & Ors. (xx) 2018 Accidents Claims Journal 1250 UIIC Vs. Subash Singh & Ors (xxi) 2018 (3) CLT 329 M/s. Dutta Service Station Vs. NIC (xxii) 2018 (3) Punjab Law Repoter 415 NIAC Vs. Sunita Makol & Ors (xxiii) First Appeal No. 347 of 2018 decided 20-12-2018 NIC Vs. Arinderbeer Singh (xxiv) 2019 ACC 608 Sarabjit Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors. (xxv) Revision Petition No. 1051 of 2015 decided on 25-8-2010 (NC) Ram Asra Vs. NIC (xxvi) CMA No. 1164 of 2012 & MP No. 1 of 2012 NIC Vs Kasambu decided on 27-4-2021(Madras High Court) (xxvii) 2021(1) Air Karnataka High Court Reports 18 H Kumari & Ors Vs. B C Sridhara & Ors. (xxviii) 2021(1) Transport and Accidents Claims Cases 492 Sarabjit Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.

25. We have carefully gone through, the record, case law cited by learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions.

26. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant got insured his vehicle with opposite party No. 1. The insurance was valid from 11-03-2017 to 10-03-2018. The vehicle/tanker in question met with an accident on 31-07-2017 wherein the insured tanker was damaged. The complainant submitted claim and completed the material formalities but the opposite parties repudiated claim.

27. The plea taken by the opposite party in repudiation letter dated 27-7-2018 (Ex. OP-1/3) is that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the vehicle used for carrying the hazardous goods as per Section 14 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule No. 9 and 132 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and thus, claim is not admissible due to non-availability of valid driving licence at the time of accident.

28. Rule 9 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with the education qualification for driver of goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. As per this rules, in addition to education qualification, a certificate of having successfully passed course consisting of syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods is also required. The Motor Vehicles Rules are statutory rules. The compliance of these rules is also required. As per these rules, course consisting of syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods is also required.

29. The complainant has placed on file photocopy of driving licence of driver (Ex. C-5) and training certificate (Ex. C-6) issued by Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, District G.B. Nagar (U.P.) of the driver Sumare Singh to prove that the driver was having valid, legal and effective driving licence and he has obtained special training also. Even per Ex. OP-1/10 produced on file by the opposite party it is no-where mentioned that this endorsement is necessary whereas there is mentioned that training for driving Hazardous goods is necessary and complainant has produced on file training certificate Ex. C-6. The opposite party No. 1 has neither proved that driving licence of driver is not genuine nor that training certificate produced by complainant is fake.

30. It is evident that the driver was having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle and also the driver had undertaken a training programme for safe transportation of hazardous goods as per Motor Vehicle Rule 9, but without having endorsement on the DL. However, mere absence of endorsement on driving licence would not have disqualified the driver to drive the vehicle carrying goods of hazardous nature. Carrying or non-carrying of hazardous substance have no nexus with the cause of accident. In such circumstances, the breach of not having obtained endorsement is not so fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of accident.

31. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that mere endorsement on the driving licence does not increase the profession skill of the driver. The opposite party No. 1 cannot escape its liability to pay the claim. Thus, repudiation of claim by the opposite party No. 1 without any basis amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

32. Resultantly, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 59,200/- as assessed by surveyor with interest @9% P.A. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 27-7-2018 till payment.

33. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

34. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

35. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    30-11-2021

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member