DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 100 of 1-05-2019

Decided on : 30-11-2021

M/s Punjab Fusion Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Arya Samaj Chowk, Bathinda, through Sh. Davinder Singh Kohli duly authorized Director.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, 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

.... Opposite party

2. YES Bank Ltd., Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda through it’s Manager.

    

.....Performa Opposite Party

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

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

O R D E R

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. M/s. Punjab Fusion Pvt. Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint through its Director Sh. Devinder Singh Kohli under Section 12 of the 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 Company Limited 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. Davinder Singh Kohli is duly Authorized Director of the Complainant Firm. The complainant is the Regd. Owner of the Gas Tanker Regd. No. PB-03-U-9713 and the said tanker is comprehensively insured with opposite party No. 1 vide Insurance Certificate No.2001013117P113898831 w.e.f. 31.12.2017 to 30.12.2018.

3. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 26/27.05.2018, the said Tanker of the complainant met with an accident near Beas Dera village Ghumana and that time, the vehicle was being driven by Sumare Singh. Thereafter in the morning, when the vehicle was towing, due to short circuit the cabin of the damaged vehicle got fire and as such, the vehicle of the complainant badly damaged. This fact of accident and fire was duly confirmed by Mr. Satish Bansal, Investigator of opposite party No.1 in his report dated 03.08.2018. The damaged vehicle shifted at Bathinda with the workshop under the directions of officials of Opposite party No.1 and complainant spent Rs.17,000/- on the same.

4. It is alleged that the oppopsite party No.1 at the time of issuing the insurance, stated that the total towing charges payable as the same is included in the OD part of the insurance and the premium for OD charged including total towing charges payable. The driver Sumare Singh is duly licensed from Distt. Transport Authority with certificate of Hazardous goods and he duly passed the same. 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. They also clarified that the certificate is sufficient to drive Hazardous goods vehicle. The said certificate and copy of DL already supplied to the Insurance Co. Moreover, the driver already applied with the RTO for the endorsement of the hazardous goods in the DL through on line Sarathi software on 13.04.2018 & paid Rs.300/- on 14.04.2018 prior to the accident. The NIA subsidiary of the GIC (UIIC also the subsidiary of GIC) already issued the circular regarding the training certificate of hazardous goods and clearly mentioned that the claim is payable.

5. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim immediately with opposite party No.1 at Bathinda and they appointed Mr. Dinesh Goyal surveyor at Bathinda on 02.06.2018, who visited the spot and surveyed the loss on the same day under the instructions of opposite party No.1. The said Vehicle was badly damaged in this accident and the same was shifted with Tony Motor Garage, Workshops at Bathinda. The above said Surveyor Er. Dinesh Goyal, surveyed the vehicle and duly verified the papers and thereafter issued his Spot Survey report on 13.08.2018 but no copy of the same was ever supplied to the complainant although the same is mandatory. The total repair work was done in the presence of Mr. Dinesh Goyal surveyor of the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda. The complainant Spent Rs. 6,09,922/- on the repair of the said vehicle and the said amount was spent by complainant from his pocket in the presence of the surveyor of the opposite party No.1 and all the original Bills already supplied to opposite party No.1 through Final Surveyor. Gas tanker was repaired from super special Job and the cabin was changed with the consent of the Final Surveyor of the opposite party No.1, but he in-connivance with opposite party No.1 reduced the rates and denied the parts and charged depreciation clause on parts, GST and Labour charges also which is total against the spirit of insurance and against the law. 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 and gave the assurance that the full claim will be paid as there is no depreciation clause on labour bills. The surveyor prepared the report of final loss on 13.08.2018 and he took the blank consent letter on 05.08.2018 prior to the final report which is self- speaking. Under these circumstances, the complainant withdraws the said consent letter which has been prepared at the back of the complainant.The Surveyor and opposite party No.1 never sent any Survey Report to the complainant, although the same is mandatory under the regulations of IRDA Rules. The Final Surveyor made his report on 13.08.2018 against his appointment dated 02.06.2018 after 2 Months with his own mind and against the law and rules of IMT and Insurance Policy and he prepared the same inconnivance with opposite party No.1.

6. It is further alleged that complainant inquired many times regarding claim of his vehicle from the office of opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply and sitting over the claim of the complainant without any reason. The claim of Rs.4,24,820/- plus Rs.17,000/- as towing charges Total Rs.4,41,820/- are till date pending with the 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 said claims i.e. Repair Charges, and Towing Charges etc. by the opposite party No.1, the complainant has suffered mental agony and pains for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party No. 1 to pay claim amount of Rs.4,41,820/- ( Rs.4,24,820/- plus Rs.17,000/- as towing charges) with interest @18% P.A. from the date of loss till payment, in addition to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. 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 attoney or resolution of Board of Directors of complainant company has been pleaded; since the claim has been decided and repudiated, there remains no cause of action to the complainant to continue the present complaint; the complaint is baselsess, wrong, vague, self-contradictory, illegal against facts; the complaint is merely an abuse of procsss of law; there is specific artbition clause, according to which if there arises any dispute regrding the claim, then same should only be referred to an arbitrator, hence, complainant is debarred from seeking any relief from this Commission, as this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint; complainant is estoped 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.; as per records provided by complainant and as per investigaton report, it has come to the kowledge of oposite party No. 1 that license of alleged driver was not valid for driving the hazardous goods vehicle, as same was not having endorsement entitling him to drive said tanker which HVG and containing hazardous goods.

9. It is pleaded that the complainant is liable to prove that alleged Training School, was duly Licenced and authorized, 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, but 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 should have also been got made an endorsement on the heavy goods vehicle driving Licence, made from concerned Transport Authorities of the State. Further 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 has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service of the opposite party No.1;

10. It is further pleaded that Rajdeep Sehgal, surveyor appointed by opposite party No. 1 to report about the alleged loss after making proper survey and investigation, had made proper enquiry, survey and investigation and reported that the driver 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.

11. Further legal objections are that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and and decide this complaint; as per RTI information obtained from RTA Bathinda it clearly finds mentioned that there is specific provison of endorsement of Hazardous goods vehicle in DL. and such endorsement of training of driving of Hazarrdous vehilce is mandatory and is not formal one.; as per Section 92 of Evidence Act, no oral evidence against the statue or contents of document can be given or admissible; surveyors deputed by oposite party No.1 are aproved by IRDA and are independent persons having nocconcern with Insurance Company.

12. It is pleaded that as per report of the surveyor, a sum of Rs, 2,01,650/- is net payable amount recommended after deducting depreciation, salvage and excess amounts from the assessed loss to arrive net payable amount. The accident took place on 26/27-05-2018 and vehicle was damaged, thereafter at the time of towing, cabin of vehicle got damaged which was not due to the accidental loss.

13. Further legal objections are that the complainnt is estoped from filing this complaint due to its acts, conducts, admissions, omissons and acquiescence; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of un necessary party and non joinder of necessary party and that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious, wrong, illegal, against facts, baseless, unfounded and has been filed with malafide intention to harass the opposite party No. 1, so it deserves dismissal with special costs.

14. On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that it is a matter of record that Cover note and GCV Public Carrier other than 3 Wheeler Package Policy No.2001013117P113898831 for the period 31-12-2017 to 30-12-2018 of vehicle No.PB-03-U9713 was issued and delivered by oposite party No. 1 to complainant.

15. It is pleaded that at the time of accident, there was no fire in the cabin nor same was badly damaged, rather same happened due to negligence of complainant and its driver at the time of towing the same and not in the accident. It is denied that alleged driver Sumer Singh was having valid, legal, proper driving licence having an endrosement from competent authority thereon, to drive hazrdous goods vehicle. It is also denied that office of DTO Bathinda has clarified that Transport DL is valid licence for driving any type of vehicle and there is no provison in shoftware of DTO Bathinda to make special endorsement of hazardous goods in the driving licence. Rather as per RTI nformation receied from PIO i.e. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda, there is procedure for getting the endorsement made in the DL i.e. By way of applying it online on Parvahan.govt.in website. The RTI information has been given by Gazetted officer of Transport Authority, which is most reliable, legal and vlaid, so the alleged sttements of clerical staff cannot be believed in any manner.

16. It is further pleaded that intimtion of alleged accident was given and surveyor was appointed. As per final survey report, there was net loss of Rs, 2,01,650/- as assessed in report dated 13-08-2018, which is susbject to terms and conditons of policy. Since, driver of vehicle in question was not hving legal and valid DL at the time of alleged accident, so the claim was rightly repudiated. There is no willful delay or default or deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 1 to decide this calim and it was duly repudiated on 17-05-2018 due to typgraphical msitake the date is mentioned as 17-05-2018 instead of 17-05-2019 in said letter by Abohar Branch office. The present complaint is dated 01-05-2019 wheres repudiation is dated 17-05-2019. Thus, this complaint is pre-mature and without any cause of action. No amount on any account is payable to the complainant in this case by opposite party No.1. The claim was repudiated on 17-05-2019 as the complainant has failed to produce the driving licence of the said driver with endorsement of Hazaroudos goods depite repeated requests till date. 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.

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

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

19. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Devinder Singh Kohli dated 01-05-2019 (Ex.C-1), photocopy of RC (Ex.C-2), photocopy of insurance certificate (Ex.C-3), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C-4), photocopy of towing receipt (Ex.C-5) photocopy of DL (Ex.C-6),photocopy of training certificate (Ex.C-7), photocppy of applications and reciepts (Ex.C8 to Ex.C-11), photocopy of statements of DTO officials (Ex.C-12 & C-13), photocopy of verification of DL (Ex.C-14), photocopy of circular ( Ex.C-15),photo copy of e-mail (Ex.C-16), photocopy of bills (Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-38), photocopy of consent letter (Ex.C-39), photocopy of claim form (Ex.C-40) and photocopy of IRDA circular ( Ex.C-41).

20. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led by the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh dated 25-07-2019( Ex.OP1/1), photocopy of no claim letter dated ( Ex.OP1/2), photocopy of recommedntion Ex.OP1/3,) photocoyof legal oinion ( Ex.OP1/4), photocpy of policy ( Ex.OP1/5), photocopyof DL veriiction( Ex.OP1/6), photocopy of survey report ( Ex.OP1/7), photocopy of claim form ( Ex.OP1/8), photocopy of investgiaton reort ( Ex.OP1/9), photocopy of policy ( Ex.OP1/10) photocopy of DL (Ex.OP1/11),photocopy of verification report ( Ex.OP1/12), photocopy of extract of DL ( Ex.OP1/13 & OP/1/14). In additional evidence, opposite party No. 1 also tendered into evidence photocopy of RTI informtion (Ex.P1/15) and photocopy of RTO application (Ex.OP1/16).

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

22. 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 the opposite party w.e.f. 31-12-2017 to 30-12-2018. It is also not disputed that vehicle met with an accident in the intervening night of 26/27-5-2018 and intimation was given to 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.

23. 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-7) and photocopy of DL of Sumare Singh as Ex. C-6. As per this certificate, the driver Sumare Singh has obtained training from 25-3-2018 to 28-03-2019. 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. Moreover, the vehicle was empty at the time of incident. As such, complainant is not liable for any breach of insurance term and insurance company is liable to pay insurance claim to complainant.

24. 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, Balwan 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.

25. On the other hand, learned counsel for 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-7). 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.

26. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite party 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.

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

28. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant got insured his vehicle with the opposite party No. 1. The insurance was valid from 31-12-2017 to 30-12-2018. The vehicle/tanker in question met with an accident on the intervening night of 26/27-5-2018 wherein the insured tanker was damaged. The complainant submitted claim and completed the material formalities but the opposite party No. 1 repudiated claim.

29. As per repudiation letter dated 17-5-2018 (Ex. OP-1/2), plea of the opposite party No. 1 is that the claim is repudiated on the basis of driving licence not having endorsement to drive hazardous goods vehicle at the time of accident, so claim is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the policy, hence file is closed.

30. 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.

31. The complainant has placed on file photocopy of driving licence of driver (Ex. C-6) and training certificate (Ex. C-7) 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-1/15 produced on file by opposite party No.1, 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-7. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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 opposite party No. 1 without any basis amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

34. 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. 2,01,650/- as assessed by surveyor with interest @9% P.A. from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 1-5-2019 till payment.

35. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

37. 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