BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 401 of 2020
Date of Institution:1.10.2020
Date of Decision:11.11.2022
M/s. Prem Kumar & Sons Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 7/6-1,Bazar Batti Hattan Chowk Chaurasti Attri, Guru Bazar, Amritsar through its Authorized Representative 8650158268
Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, 283, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar -143001 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Divisional Manager/ Authorized Officer, Email id : Opposite Party
Complaint under section 34 & 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
Result : Complaint Partly Allowed
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainants : Sh. Updip Singh,Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Sh. Aman Prashar,Advocate
CORAM
Mr.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Mrs.Mandeep Kaur, Member
Mr.Lakhwinder Pal Gill, Member
ORDER:-
Mr.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainant u/s 34 & 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts and pleadings
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of whole sale business of gold and diamond ornaments and in this regard placed on record copy of the resolution Ex.C-1A passed by Board of Directors dated 7.9.2020 vide which present complainant was authorized to file this complaint. The complainant purchased comprehensive insurance policy covering the risk of loss of stock, stock in trade, cash, furniture, fixtures, trade equipments etc and the oppos8ite party has issued proposal form dated 27.8.2018 and on the basis of same, issued “Jewellers Block Insurance policy” dated 29.8.2018 for the period from 30.8.2018 to 29.8.2019 covering the loss of stock and stock in trade to the tune of Rs. 28,00,00,000/- against burglary and theft. To purchase this policy complainant company has paid total premium as Rs. 1,19,597/- to the opposite party. The proposal form is placed on record as Ex.C-1B and C-2. Unfortunately on 15.9.2018 robbery took place at the insured premises causing loss to the complainant company. Immediately thereafter , one of directors of the company lodged FIR No. 66 dated 16.9.2018 at P.S. D Division, Amritsar copy of which is Ex.C-3. Besides this intimation to the opposite party was also sent by the complainant vide letter dated 17.9.2018 Ex.C-4. Upon instruction from the representative of the opposite party intimation was also sent to the surveyor of the opposite party vide letter dated 20.9.2018 and loss was estimated at Rs. 3.20 Cr. On the asking of the surveyor documents were supplied to the surveyor vide letter dated 22.9.2018. Since all the documents were supplied by the complainant to the surveyor including the relevant record, books of accounts, purchase bills and all other relevant documents, the surveyor issued “Jewellery Loss Final Survey cum Investigation Report” dated 15.11.2018 and also gave observations that there are no breach of warranties of the policy in question and that the los being genuine, cause of loss is covered under the policy. Surveyor in conclusion held the liability of the opposite party company to the tune of Rs. 3,16,92,899/- vide its report Ex.C-7. However, as per pleadings the complainant was not satisfied with the assessment made by the surveyor as while computing the rate of gold, the surveyor has wrongly taken into consideration the purchasing cost of the gold, whereas in the proposal form dated 27.8.2018, it has been clearly stated that the valuation of gold would be considered at the “reinstatement basis” and placed on record Ex.C-8 i.e. copy of calculation of rates of gold at reinstatement basis. Though the surveyor had clearly stated in his comprehensive report dated 15.11.2018 that the claim of the complainant company is genuine and payable by the opposite party, still the opposite party has not made any effort to make payment of the assessed claim amount. Letter was also written by the complainant to the opposite party vide letter dated 18.12.2018 to make the payment. However, opposite party kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other and also demanded non traceable certificate from the competent authority. However, concerned authorities have handed over the documents vide its letter dated 24.12.2018 which are on the record as Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10. The opposite party was delaying the repayment of the claim amount while raising unnecessary objections, asking time and again non traceable report etc. The complainant has met with each and every demand of the opposite party regarding the documents including report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. dated 5.3.2019 only with the consideration that opposite party may settle this claim. All the queries were properly answered by the complainant time to time as raised by the opposite party. Even so much so the opposite party by not settling the claim has violated the provisions of the terms of policy regulations 2017 and the complainant has raised objections time to time. The opposite party did not stop here they have also appointed another investigator namely Sh. R.N.Azad to investigate the present matter who demanded documents afresh. Again the documents were supplied by the complainant . However till date the opposite party has not shared the report of the said investigator. Not only this as per the case of the complainant, complainant has approached the DGM of the opposite party and CMD of the opposite party. However, after long persuasions by the opposite party opposite party has paid Rs.1,50,00,000/- as part payment to the complainant subject to submission of letter of indemnity and subrogation which was made by the complainant. But till date the opposite party has not settled the whole claim of the complainant. Now the opposite party has repudiated the claim as per surveyor’s report who has recommended Rs.3.16,92,899/- nor they have paid the whole amount. Hence, the present complaint was filed seeking following reliefs:-
(i) Opposite party be directed to make the payment of Rs. 3,83,51,133/- towards the balance insurance claim at reinstatement basis alonwith interest @W 18% p.a. from the date of loss till its realization ;
(ii) Opposite party be also directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a on the partial payment made by the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from the date of loss till 20.2.2020.
(iii) Opposite party be also directed to pay for the loss incurred by the complainant company on account of interest on the CC limit paid to the HDFC Bank alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. frm the date of loss till its realization ;
(iv) Compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 90000/- be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections that opposite party has already made payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the complainant firm on submission of few documents i.e. letter of subrogation , indemnity bond but the complainant has not provided no traceable certificate and other requisite documents in order to process the rest of its claim , as such opposite party has not yet repudiated the claim or decided final claim of the complainant , hence, present complaint is pre mature. Opposite party has time and again reiterated the facts that case of the complainant is premature as opposite party has not decided this case yet and denied the remaining averments of the complainant.
3. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written version and it is categorically mentioned in the pre-liminary objections that there are provisions of IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests Regulations, 2017”. It is also the case of the complainant that opposite party has not provided the investigation report. The complainant has also submitted subrogation and letter of indemnity dated 19.2.2020 giving full details as detailed in the para No.1 of the preliminary objections. It is also the case of the complainant that once letter of subrogation and letter of indemnity dated 19.2.2020 clearly shows that once the surveyor and investigator appointed by the opposite party has assessed the loss at hand and even found the same to be genuine and thus they have wrongly denied the genuine claim of the complainant. Further more not only this the opposite party has clearly violated the IRDAI regulations vide which Insurance company is liable to settle the claim of the insured within a period of 30 days from the final survey report. In the present case the survey report has been issued on 15.11.2018 but claim has not been settled by the Insurance company. The complainant further relied upon the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2020(1) CPJ 57 wherein it has been held that “ once the surveyor appointed by the Insurance company on enquiry finds that the claim of theft is genuine then coupled with the immediate registration of the FIR in our view, would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in Kulwinder Singh Chauhan Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. CC No. 171 of 2015 decided on 11.10.2017 wherein it is held that complainant cannot be held responsible for the delay if the police take time in investigation and untraced report is not accepted by the concerned competent court. Further reliance has been placed upon Jaspal Kaur Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd CC No. 694 of 2018 decided on 21.12.2018 of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission wherein it has been held that closing of case by OP on hyper technical ground of non issuance of untraceable report certificate by magistrate is not tenable in our view .
Evidence of the parties and Arguments
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of resolution Ex.C-1A, copy of proposal form and Insurance policy Ex.C-1B and Ex.C-2, copy of FIR dated 16.9.2019 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 17.9.2018 Ex.C-4, copy of letters Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of survey report Ex.C-7, copy of calculation of rates Ex.C-8, copies of letters Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11, copy of email Ex.C-12, copy of letter dated 12.2.2019 Ex.C-13 (colly), copies of letters Ex.C-14 (colly) and Ex.C-15, copy of letter dated 22.3.2019 Ex.C-16, copies of emails Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-19, copy of letter dated 13.9.2019 Ex.C-20, copy of letter dated 15.11.2019 Ex.C-20A, Copy of flight tickets of Sh. Munish Kumar Ex.C-20B, copy of internal letter dated 11.2.2020 Ex.C-21, copy of letter dated 20.2.2020 Ex.C-22, copy of letter dated 3.3.2020 Ex.C-23 (colly), copy of calculations Ex.C-24.
5. Alongwith written version opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. Darshan Kumar Bhagat, Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/1.
6. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file . We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties
Findings
7. From the pleadings and the evidence produced on record the following points are carved out for decision:-
- Whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this case.
- Whether the complaint is within time.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the insured amount and if so to what extent and any other relief.
Pecuniary jurisdiction
8.. To make the case more clear section 34(I) of the New Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is reproduced as under:-
“Jurisdiction of District Commission : (I) subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees xxxxx”
In other words the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission has been enlarged as to ensure that aggrieved consumer gets speedy redressal of his grievances and this fact has been further appreciated by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission in their respective judgements as detailed above. Further reliance has been placed upon Mrs. Poonam Sharma Vs. Institute of Liver & Biliary SDciences and others 2021(3) CLT 601 wherein it has been held that Pecuniary jurisdiction – Whether the determinants for pecuniary jurisdiction are consideration paid and compensation claimed ? Held- No- On perusal of the provisions of section 47 it would be evident that it is the consideration paid that would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Commission overruling the position prevalent under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 where the determinants for pecuniary jurisdiction were consideration paid and compensation claimed.
9. So from the law discussed as above this Commission is of the considered view that as per the New Consumer Protection Act jurisdiction of the District Commission is upto Rs. 50 lacs the amount actually paid for the goods or services . In the present case the amount i.e. premium so paid by the complainant is Rs.1,19,597/- and thus this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
Whether the complaint is time barred:-
10. Though opposite party has not raised any objection regarding cause of action or issue about the time bar of the case . But as per settled principle of law the point of jurisdiction and the limitation are to be looked into by Court/Commission itself though parties have not raised any objection. Hence, this point is also taken up for consideration. In the present case cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the instant complaint on 20.2.2020 which clearly shows that the complaint is within time.
Whether the complainant is entitled for the insured amount and if so to what extent and any other relief.
11. For the purpose of deciding the point as above the Commission has taken up the facts for the purpose of discussion. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record, the case of the complainant is that he engaged in the business of gold and diamond ornaments and purchased comprehensive insurance policy covering the risk of loss of stock, stock in trade, cash, furniture, fixtures, trade equipments etc and the opposite party has issued proposal form dated 27.8.2018 and on the basis of same, issued “Jewellers Block Insurance policy” dated 29.8.2018 for the period from 30.8.2018 to 29.8.2019 covering the loss of stock and stock in trade to the tune of Rs. 28,00,00,000/- against burglary and theft. Unfortunately on 15.9.2018 robbery took place at the insured premises causing loss to the complainant company. Immediately thereafter , one of directors of the company lodged FIR No. 66 dated 16.9.2018 at P.S. D Division, Amritsar copy of which is Ex.C-3. Besides this intimation to the opposite party was also sent by the complainant vide letter dated 17.9.2018 Ex.C-4. Upon instruction from the representative of the opposite party intimation was also sent to the surveyor of the opposite party vide letter dated 20.9.2018 and loss was estimated at Rs. 3.20 Cr. On the asking of the surveyor documents were supplied to the surveyor vide letter dated 22.9.2018. Since all the documents were supplied by the complainant to the surveyor including the relevant record, books of accounts, purchase bills and all other relevant documents, the surveyor issued “Jewellery Loss Final Survey cum Investigation Report” dated 15.11.2018 and also gave observations that there are no breach of warranties of the policy in question and that the los being genuine, cause of loss is covered under the policy. Surveyor in conclusion held the liability of the opposite party company to the tune of Rs. 3,16,92,899/- vide its report Ex.C-7. As the complainant was not satisfied with the assessment made by the surveyor as while computing the rate of gold, the surveyor has wrongly taken into consideration the purchasing cost of the gold, whereas in the proposal form dated 27.8.2018, it has been clearly stated that the valuation of gold would be considered at the “reinstatement basis” and placed on record Ex.C-8 i.e. copy of calculation of rates of gold at reinstatement basis. Though the surveyor had clearly stated in his comprehensive report dated 15.11.2018 that the claim of the complainant company is genuine and payable by the opposite party, still the opposite party has not made any effort to make payment of the assessed claim amount. Letter was also written by the complainant to the opposite party vide letter dated 18.12.2018 to make the payment. However, opposite party kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other and also demanded non traceable certificate from the competent authority. However, concerned authorities have handed over the documents vide its letter dated 24.12.2018 which are on the record as Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10. The opposite party was delaying the repayment of the claim amount while raising unnecessary objections, asking time and again non traceable report etc. Even so much so the opposite party by not settling the claim has violated the provisions of the terms of policy regulations 2017 and the complainant has raised objections time to time. The opposite party did not stop here they have also appointed another investigator namely Sh. R.N.Azad to investigate the present matter who demanded documents afresh. Again the documents were supplied by the complainant . However till date the opposite party has not shared the report of the said investigator. Not only this as per the case of the complainant, complainant has approached the DGM of the opposite party and CMD of the opposite party. However, after long persuasions by the opposite party opposite party has paid Rs.1,50,00,000/- as part payment to the complainant subject to submission of letter of indemnity and subrogation which was made by the complainant only on 20.2.2020. But till date the opposite party has not settled the whole claim of the complainant.
12. On the other hand the only plea taken by the opposite party is that they have already made payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the complainant and complainant has not provided no traceable certificate and other requisite documents in order to process the rest of its claim , as such opposite party has not yet repudiated the claim or decided final claim of the complainant , hence, present complaint is pre mature.
13. From the facts as detailed above and also after assessing the record on file, it is surfaced that opposite party has only taken a plea that non-traceable report has not been submitted by the complainant and raised the objection that the complaint is pre-mature. The Commission has given thoughtful consideration to the averments made by the opposite party in their written version vis-à-vis to the rejoinder and relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2020(1) CPJ 57 (supra) which are squarely applicable to the present case and this Commission has no hesitation to hold that opposite party cannot sit over the claim of the complainant merely on the ground that non-traceable report has not been produced . This Commission has also no hesitation to hold that this case is not at all pre-mature as the complainant has approached this Commission after lapse of two years when the opposite party has not decided the claim of the complainant. No doubt the opposite party has disbursed Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 20.2.2020 i.e. after lapse of approximately two years from the report of the surveyor.
14. Keeping the facts as above now, the next question arises that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service on account of not deciding the claim of complainant inspite of the report of the surveyor dated 15.11.2018 who has made observations that there are breach of warranties of the policy in question and that the loss being genuine, cause of loss is covered under the policy. The said surveyor held the liability of the Insurance company to the tune of Rs. 3,16,92,899/- as per its report Ex.C-7. As such there is survey report which speaks voluminous in favour of the complainant in all counts. It is most important to mention here that in the final recommendation made by the surveyor it is duly mentioned as under:-
- It is a genuine case of loss to the insured due to robbery
- Cause of loss is covered in the policy. The loss is not covered under any exclusion to the policy. There are no violations of policy terms and conditions.
- As per our observation and assessment of loss, insurer’s liability is engaged to the extent of Rs. 3,16,92,899/- subject to deduction of applicable excess, if any.
There is no iota of evidence produced by the opposite party to rebut this report particularly when the surveyor was appointed by the opposite party itself. However, the opposite party to best of his wisdom had paid Rs. 1,50,00,000/- out of the assessed amount of Rs.3,16,92,899/- and as such opposite party has withheld the remaining amount of Rs. 1,66,92,899/- which was yet not paid nor any decision was taken either this amount is payable or not whereas their surveyor has given the report in favour of the complainant that there is net loss of Rs. 3,16,92,899/-. During the course of arguments , a query was put forth by this Commission to the Ld.counsel for the opposite party as to why they have not decided this case. The Ld.counsel for the opposite party has made allegations on two points that (i) complainant has not awaited the outcome of final report of the opposite party ; (ii) though this is not part of pleadings , it was argued by the Ld.counsel for the opposite party that some of the gold articles were recovered by the police in criminal case which has taken by the complainant. But this Commission is of the considered view that these arguments carry no force particularly when opposite parties have not taken any such plea in its pleadings and no evidence has been produced in this regard. Reverting back to the arguments of this case, this Commission has no hesitation to say that once the surveyor of the opposite party by assessing the loss given the report in favour of the complainant on 15.11.2018, the opposite party has no other option left except to settle the claim within 30 days as per IRDA regulations in the light of survey report Ex.C-7. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajbir Kaur, in First Appeal No. 711 of 2013 decided on 27.2.2015 of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein in similar case, the Hon’ble State Commission directed the Insurance company and stated that as per the regulations/instructed issued by the IRDA, the claims made under the Insurance policies are ordinarily be settled within one month of the submission of the claim. Further reliance has been placed upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Extraction Pvt.Ltd. 2020(1) CLT 255 of the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it has been held that “as per regulation 9 of IRDA, Insurance company after survey report ought to settle or reject claim within a period of 30 days after receipt of survey report. In instant case even second survey report was received on 8.9.2003, therefore, inordinate delay of 5 long years is totally unjustified and for a company to sustain a loss of this amount which was ultimately paid by the Insurance company on 26.8.2008, 5 years from the date of accident, cannot be undermined. Insurance company is in a dominant position and taking 5 years to settle claim in full and final satisfaction construes that complainant had accepted amount only under financial pressures. Similar view has been taken in Manjeet Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 2022(2) CPR 14 of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that more than 6 years have passed from the receipt of the report by the Insurance company in settling the claim of the complainant. Complainant justifiably asked for claim on account of loss suffered by company in an accidental fire which is covered under Insurance policy. Further reliance has been placed upon M/s. K.C. Textiles Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Others 2015(2) CLT 125 of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that the insured is seeking interest, in a case where the insurance company takes his consent for settling the claim at a particular amount, does not pay that amount for six years, does not give any valid justification for delaying the payment inspite of obtaining consent of the insured and then prevails upon him to give a second settlement voucher, accepting almost the same amount after a period of more than six years-Conduct of the insurance company held unethical, unjust and unreasonable- Interest @ 9% p.a allowed. Further reliance has been placed in Guptasons Jewellelrs & Germs Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd of the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission wherein it has been held that once Insurance company had made payment of one briefcase of broker amounting to Rs. 15 lacs as per their surveyor report then they are under obligation to pay balance amount of Rs. 20 lacs as per assessed loss estimate of surveyor- Delay in settlement of claims itself amounts to undue coercion- OP took 4 years to settle claim- No reason for delay- Complainant is entitled for balance amount of Rs. 20 lacs alongwith compensation Rs. 50000/-.
15. The aforesaid cited law squarely covers the case of the complainant as the surveyor appointed by the opposite party itself given his report by assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,16,92,899/- vide its report dated 15.11.2018 even then the opposite party delayed the payment and above all more than 4 years have been elapsed which thus amounts to deficiency in service and thus the opposite parties are found guilty of deficiency in service. No doubt the complainant in his complaint has contended that the surveyor has assessed the loss on lower side as in the proposal form dated 27.8.2018 it has been clearly stated that the valuation of gold would be considered at “reinstatement basis” and the copy of calculation of rates of gold at reinstatement basis is Ex.C-8 i.e. 3,83,51,133/- and has prayed accordingly. But we are not agreed with this contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant as it is settled principle of law that each case has its own facts and in the present case the report of the surveyor becomes final as the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss . Reliance in this regard can be had to United India Insu.Co. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Ltd (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “as far as loss assessed by the surveyor is concerned, the weightage to the same has to be given by the court being substantial piece of evidence as surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and the court cannot assume the role of surveyor.” Further reliance can be placed upon Paam Eatables Vs. United India Insu.Co 2004(3) CLT page 163 wherein it has been laid down that surveyor’s report being an important document cannot be rejected without any reason. As such complainant cannot claim more than the surveyor report. Above all the complainant has not raised any objection qua survey report hence at this stage the complainant cannot raise the demand of assessment of claim at reinstatement basis i.e. Ex.C-8.
16. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay the remaining amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. 1,66,92,899/- (Rs.3,16,92,899/- minus Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as already paid) . So far as rate of interest is concerned this Commission has given thoughtful consideration and relied upon the document submitted by the complainant that he is paying compound interest to the bank for taking CC limit Ex.C-24 vide which he has given details of the interest on HDFC CC account w.e.f. 1.9.2018 to 18.8.2020 amounting to Rs. 43,39,392.99 within these two years which can be avoided had the opposite party made the payment of claim within time after the report of the surveyor. This Commission relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt.Ltd Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor in Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019 wherein it has been held that “we are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interests shall be payable from the dates of such deposits. We are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the Consumer for enhancement of interest.” Keeping in view the totality of circumstances in the present case also this Commission feel it fair that the complainant should not suffer from the deficient act of the opposite party i.e. we hold that the complainant is entitled to the interest @ 9% p.a. not only the amount which is yet to be paid by the opposite party but the amount which has been paid by the opposite party on 20.2.2020 i.e. approximately after 2 years of submission of survey report. To make the order more clear it is ordered that opposite party will pay the interest @ 9%p.a. on the remaining amount of Rs . 1,66,92,899/- from the date of survey report till its realization and also to pay interest on the paid amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from the date of survey report i.e. 15.11.2018 till its payment i.e. 20.2.2020 when the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was actually paid to the complainant.
17. So far as compensation , since the complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission and the opposite party did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant and certainly this litigation could have been avoided . Though admittedly compensation term has not been explained in the Consumer Protection Act, however since this Act is based on principle of equity, good concise and natural justice and the Commission is empowered to provide compensation after assessing the facts of each case. This Commission relied upon the latest law on this point of compensation i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Amitabha Dasgupta Vs. United Bank of India and others AIR 2021 SC (Civil) 1457 wherein it has been held that “ Deficiency in service- Duty of care should be exercised by bank irrespective of application of laws of bailment to contents of locker- Bank inadvertently broke customer’s locker, without giving prior notice, inspite of clearing pending dues by him- Bank acted in blatant disregard to responsibilities owned to customer as service provider- Case of gross deficiency in service- Imposition of costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on bank, would be appropriate compensation to customer.” As the complainant has suffered a lot of mental as well as physical agony as he approached the opposite party at Chennai after taking the tickets (which are placed on record by the complainant Ex.C20B) and the opposite party has not disbursed the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- very easily, further the complainant had to pay compound interest against the CC limit amounting to Rs. 43,39,392.99 in totality the act of the opposite parties came within the gross negligence as per law stated as above.. Hence to meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate case where compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50000/- is awarded to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission.
Announced in Open Commission (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra) President
Dated: 11.11.2022
(Lakhwinder Pal Gill) ( Mandeep Kaur )
Member Member
