NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/s
Pankaj Variety Hall Complainant
10/94,
Amrit Buildings
S
M Street
Represented
by its Partner
Pankaj
A Bhulani
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd
Registered Office, Oriental
House
A 25/27,
M/s Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Divisional Office
11/27, 2nd Floor
Promod Buildings
The
Federal Bank Ltd.,
Puthiyara
673 004. Opposite
Parties
M/s
Pankaj Saree Emporium Complainant
10/94,
Amrit Buildings
S
M Street
Represented
by its Partner
Smt
Chandni P Bhulani
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd
Registered Office, Oriental
House
A 25/27,
M/s Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Divisional Office
11/27, 2nd Floor
Promod Buildings
BEFORE:
MRS RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant Shri S. K. Pattajoshi,
Advocate
For the Opposite Parties Shri Vishnu Mehra,
Advocate
Ms
Sakshi Mittal, Advocate
Dated
O R D
E R
M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT
Sister
concerns, M/s. Pankaj Variety Hall – Complainant in Original Petition
No.30/1998, and
M/s. Pankaj Saree Emporium – Complainant in Original Petition No.68/1998 had their
shops in the same building situated in the prominent locality of
2. During
the currency of the policies taken by Complainants, on
3. For this fire and damage, there is no dispute.
4. However,
as there was no satisfactory response from the Insurance Company in settling
the claims preferred by the Complainants, the Complainants approached this
Commission by filing the above-stated two Original Petitions.
5. Since
the facts in both the cases are common and the survey reports and the
contentions are also
similar, we dispose of both the Original Petitions by this common
judgment.
6. The
dispute in both these complaints is with regard to the assessment of loss made
by the surveyors. It is contended that:
(i) even
though the building (claim is only in OP No. 30 of 1998) was fully renovated in
1972-73 and was a Class-I construction, which was required to be demolished
because of the fire, the surveyor, while
assessing the loss, had depreciated it
by 50% without giving any justifiable reasons;
(ii) there was no reason for not assessing
the loss suffered by the complainants for the burnt garments/sarees; and
(iii) the
assessment of the value of the salvage (damaged goods) is totally arbitrary and unjustified and it is
open to the Insurance Company to take it back and pay the value of the stock.
Original Petition No. 30 of 1998
7. Complainant is a
registered partnership firm running its business under the name and style of
M/s Pankaj Variety Hall at
|
1. |
Building |
Rs.8,00,000/- |
|
2. |
Furniture & Fittings &
Name Board |
Rs.1,00,000/- |
|
3. |
Electrical Fittings, Exhaust Fan |
Rs. 30,000/- |
|
4. |
Generator Birla Yamha 6A 2000,
88700 |
Rs. 20,000/- |
|
5. |
Emergency Lamp S339 |
Rs. 10,000/- |
|
6. |
Air Conditioner 2 Nos. 1.5 tons
(including stablizer |
Rs. 30,000/- |
Show cases – 3 Nos. (i) 47x72”
(ii) 47x72’’ Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) 90x65”
Stocks – All types of textiles Rs.15,00,000/-
Piece goods, readymades
Hosieries, mosquito
nets etc.
--------------------
Rs.25,00,000/-
-------------------
8. As the claim was not
settled, the insured had filed this
complaint claiming a sum of
Rs.81,92,630/-.
Original Petition No. 68 of 1998
9. In
the same building, also on the first floor, the complainant was
running a firm known as M/s.Pankaj Saree Emporium. Complainant had taken an
insurance policy for a sum of Rs.11 lakh, the break up of which is as under:
|
I |
Stock – all types of sarees and
ladies apparels |
Rs.10,00,000/- |
|
II |
Furniture & Fittings
(including name board) |
Rs. 90,000/- |
|
|
Vaccum Cleaner |
Rs. 3,000/- |
|
|
Tape Recorder |
Rs. 5,000/- |
|
|
Franking Machine |
Rs. 2,000/- |
|
|
Total |
Rs.11,00,000/- |
10. In this
case, the Complainant claimed
a sum of Rs.46,05,700/-.
It is not necessary to mention the details of the claims made by the
Complainant.
Original Petition No.30 of
1998
Survey Reports:
I. Associated
Engineers & Surveyors:
11. On receipt of information from the complainant, the
Insurance Company appointed M/s Associated Engineers and Surveyors who
submitted their preliminary Survey Report on
12. In this survey report, in respect of the damage caused to
the building it has been mentioned as under:
(a). Situation
“The building, in which a portion is occupied by the insured, is
situated on the eastern side of S M Street,
(b1). “The building is
of Class I construction. It is quite an old one, the exact age of which is
not known. However, the approximate age of the building will be around 85
years. A total renovation of the building was carried out during 1972-73.
Thereafter,
it is further stated, “….. the ground floor was
furnished quite lavishly and exuberantly since show is a vital part in textile
sales and the insured has spent quite a good amount in furnishing the
premises.”
(b2). With regard to the loss due to fire it is mentioned, “…. the
fire had spread through the roof which was mainly of tiles over hardwood frame.
Textile and such other goods were stocked and/ or stored/ displayed in these
rooms. Some had plastic goods also inside. The whole of the top floor in the
row got almost totally burnt. However, the ground floor was safe from
direct attack of fire in the insured premises, except in one corner room. 19
shops got affected due to fire.
(b3). For the loss to the
building, it was stated by the surveyor that on the 18th morning, he
alongwith Mr.Raman, Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, inspected the
premises. Again on the 19th it was inspected by the surveyor along
with Mr. T.K.Vanchi, Sr. D.M., and Mr.Raman, and thereafter the surveyor
observed as under:
“The rooms were not allowed to be opened from the front at that time by
the authorities. Therefore, fixed glasses on the left side of Pankaj Saree
Emporium were broken and access to it made. After taking photographs we made
arrangements for salvaging the goods. Two rooms from the nearby Hotel Arya
Bhavan was hired by the insured and stock was shifted
to that safe place.
Hot water was
dripping from the cracks of roof and walls. The water was mixed with ash, dirt
and filth. Goods kept in almirahs and shelves with glass
covering was safe from getting wet. Other goods got wet and dirtied. Smoke
and heat had affected most of the stock. We found it very difficult to stay
inside the rooms due to suffocation. The roof was cracked and main beams got
partially burnt and broken. It appeared that the roof might give in at any
time. Walls were leaking and water had dampened the cloths kept close to such
walls inside shelves. Clothes kept on
tables, though covered with cotton clothes for preventing accumulation of dust,
also got wet by the dripping water.
The roof appeared cracked and was sloping to the center. The pillars
inside were some how holding it temporarily. The whole building was damaged
totally and was beyond repairs. Top floor was completely burnt. Ground floor
walls got cracked and roof severely damaged.”
(b4). Finally, it was observed as
under:
“The building was almost completely damaged. The age of the building
warrants that no repairs but reconstruction is inevitable. Laterite and
undamaged wooden parts can be salvaged. Electrical wiring was damaged. Lamps
and fans got wet. Air conditioners were seen externally unaffected.”
(b5). Further,
in the next paragraph, it was noted that the report was delayed due to
non-cooperation of the insured by not providing information. The surveyor also
noted that even though the insured had stated that he had maintained all the
books of accounts up-to-date and meticulously, he had not shown any of the
books.
II. M/s. Team
Surveyors
13. Thereafter,
the Insurance Company appointed M/s Team Surveyors, who submitted their final
survey report on
(a) Building:
14. The aforesaid surveyors assessed the
loss caused to the building at Rs.9,65,144/-; however,
they reduced it by 50% on the ground of depreciation and, thereafter, further
reduced it by Rs.50,000/- for the salvage value. Hence, the surveyors finally
assessed the net loss for the building at Rs.4,32,572/-.
(b) Furniture,
Fittings, etc.
15.
The loss caused to furniture, fittings, name board, electrical fittings
and exhaust fan is
assessed at Rs.33,312/-,
which is not disputed by the Complainant.
(c) Textile
Goods
16. For the value of
stock, the loss suffered was assessed as under:
|
1. |
Value of sound items (in selling rate) |
Rs.4,65,077.90 |
|
|
|
Less 80% salvage value on selling price |
Rs.3,72,062.32 |
|
|
|
(We consider 20% loss on account of suspected
damages due to smoke/ wetness etc., though had been segregated as sound item
by the insured’s employees in our presence) |
Rs.
93,015.58 |
Rs.
93,015.58 |
|
2. |
Value of wet/stained goods (on selling rate) |
Rs.2,63,107.40 |
|
|
|
Less Salvage value @ 50% on selling rate |
Rs.1,31,553.70 |
|
|
|
|
Rs.1,31,533.70 |
Rs.1,31,533.70 |
|
3. |
Value of
partially burnt goods (on selling rate) |
Rs.
8,720.50 |
Rs.
8,720.50 |
|
|
Less Salvage
value |
NIL |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
Rs.2,33,289.78 |
Considering 17.5% profit margin on
cost price, the actual value of loss was worked out to Rs.2,33,289.78 x 100 = Rs.1,98,544.49
117.5
17. Therefore,
the assessed loss on stock of all types of textile goods comes to Rs.1,98,544.49.
18. Summary of Assessment
|
1. |
Building |
Rs.4,32,572.00 |
|
2. |
Furniture, Fittings & Name Board |
Rs.
11,750.00 |
|
3. |
Electrical Fittings and Exhaust Fan |
Rs. 21,562.50 |
|
4. |
Stock of Textile Goods |
Rs.1,98,544.49 |
|
|
TOTAL |
Rs.6,64,428.99 |
Thus, the net
assessed loss for all items is Rs.6,64,429/-.
III. M/s. N.
Velayutham & Company
19. It appears that, not being satisfied
with the assessment made by the Team Surveyors, and without seeking any
explanation from the Team Surveyors, the Insurance Company appointed one
M/s.N.Velayutham & Company as a third surveyor, who submitted their report
on 14th January, 1997. Their assessment
of loss is as under:
(a). Building
|
Reconstruction cost of buildings |
Rs.9,65,144/- |
|
Less : Depreciation 64.5% |
Rs.6,22,518/- |
|
Depreciated value of building |
Rs.3,42,626/- |
(b). Furniture,
Fittings and Name Board
For this, the damage assessed by the
Team Surveyors needed no revision.
(c). Abstract of
Assessment
Ultimately,
their assessment is as under:
|
1. |
Stock |
Rs.2,34,963.40 |
|
2. |
Building |
Rs.3,42,626.00 |
|
3. |
Furniture etc., |
Rs.
11,750.00 |
|
4. |
Electrical items |
Rs.
28,750.00 |
|
|
Total |
Rs.6,18,089.40 |
20. After receipt of the said survey
report, the Insurance Company, by its letter dated
21. By
an interim order dated
Findings
Original
Petition No.30 of 1998
22. In this
complaint, the dispute is only with regard to the arbitrary and imaginary method adopted by the Surveyors in assessing the loss
caused to the building and the stocks.
I. Buildings
23. The
learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently pointed out that after assessing
the loss for the building at Rs.9,65,144/-, there was no justifiable grounds
for depreciating it by 50% or 65% by the Team Surveyors and N.Velayuthan &
Co., respectively. He submitted that, no doubt, the building was old, but it
was fully renovated in the year 1972, as mentioned by the preliminary
surveyor, namely, M/s Associated Engineers and Surveyors. Further, the
preliminary surveyor had mentioned that the building was a class I construction
and a total renovation of the building was carried out during the year
1972/1973. The preliminary surveyor had stated that the ground floor was
furnished quite lavishly and exuberantly since a grandeur show for such shop was
vital. For this, the insured had spent quite a good amount in furnishing the
premises. He also noted that the fire continued for nine hours and that the
whole of the top floor got almost totally burnt. Since the top floor was burnt
almost fully, heat was radiating downwards. The roof of the ground floor got
damaged. Hot water was dripping from the cracks of roof and walls. The water
was mixed with ash, dirt and filth. Even the second surveyor, namely, M/s.Team
Surveyors, stated that in
these circumstances the building was required to be completely
demolished and re-built. For reconstruction, they assessed the cost at Rs.9,65,144/- and reduced the loss by deducting Rs.4,32,572/-
(50% of the assessed cost of reconstruction).
24. As against this, the complainant
produced on record evidence to the effect that they spent more than Rs.21 lakh
for reconstruction of the building.
25. In our
view, simply because the complainant claims to have spent a large amount for
reconstruction, it would not mean that the complainant is entitled to recover
that amount (in this case the sum assured for the buildings was Rs.8 lakh.)
26. However,
depreciation of the assessed cost of reconstructing the insured building by 50%
appears to be totally unjustified and without any basis, as the building was completely
renovated in the year 1972 and, the shops were well decorated and maintained.
27. Further, no reason is given by the
surveyor in reducing the cost of reconstruction of the building by 50%. That
assessment apparently requires to be modified. At the same time, in our view it
would not be proper to grant the sum assured, i.e., Rs.8 lakh as contended by
the complainant.
28. In this set of circumstances, in our
view it would be just and reasonable to fix the depreciation at 25%, i.e., it
should be reduced by Rs.2,41,000/- only (i.e., 25% of
Rs.9,65,000/-). Hence, it is
ordered that for the building, the complainant would be entitled to get/- a
further sum of Rs.2,41,000/-, in addition to Rs.4,32,572, i.e., Rs.6,73,572/-
[Rs.2,41,000/- + Rs.4,32,572] less
Rs.50,000/- on account of salvage as
assessed by the Surveyor, which comes to Rs.6,23,572/-.
II. Stocks
29. For the textile goods, the learned
Counsel for the complainant submitted that the loss assessment was totally
unjustified because all throughout the relevant period, as supported by the
bank statements, the complainant was keeping stocks worth more than Rs.12 lakh.
He further submitted that on the basis of the purchase bills and accounts which
were audited by a Chartered Accountant, in all,
the stock was for a sum of Rs.15,10,000/-. However, Mr. Mehra, the learned Counsel for
the Insurance Company submitted that subsequent preparation of the accounts by the
Chartered Accountant could not be relied upon for giving compensation, because
the Complainant did not show the account books to both the surveyors despite
demand
30. M/s.Team Surveyors had stated that the
insured had not submitted any documents showing the stock position held at
their premises and the total stock value and type/ extent of loss/ damage was
arrived at by them only, on the basis of the list prepared, for sound items,
partially damaged and partially burnt.
31. Mr.Mehra further submitted that the
surveyor M/s. N.Velayutham & Company had also mentioned that the
complainant had not furnished the accounting records, registers, purchase
bills, etc. Thereafter, some books of accounts were shown to the surveyor.
Therefore, they appointed a Chartered Accountant to verify the books of
accounts, which were produced before them.
In addition, the learned Counsel Mr.Mehra relied upon the statement in
the reply to the legal notice dated
32. Considering the above facts, there was
no reason for the Complainants not to produce the relevant books of accounts
before the surveyor. There was also no
reason for the Complainants not to produce at least the computerized accounts
which, according to the Complainants, were maintained by them.
33. In this set of circumstances, it would
be proper to rely upon the assessment made by the surveyor.
34. At the same time, it is to be
highlighted that the Team Surveyors did not take into consideration the stocks
of textile goods which were completely burnt.
35. For this purpose, learned Counsel
Mr.Pattjoshi submitted that the statements furnished to the bank should be
taken into consideration. Learned Counsel for the complainants further
submitted that, in any case, the salvage value assessed for the damaged goods @
80% and 50% respectively was totally unjustified. He, therefore, pointed out
that the value of the damaged articles was Rs.4,65,077.90
as per the survey report of M/s. Team Surveyors. On this, there was a deduction of 80%, i.e.,
Rs.3,72,062.32 and the surveyor assessed the loss
payable at Rs.93,015.58. Similarly, for the wet/stained goods, the surveyor
assessed the loss at Rs.2,63,107/- and its salvage value
was assessed at Rs.1,31,553/- i.e., by
reducing it by 50%. He therefore, submited that deduction of Rs.5,03,616/- (i.e., Rs.3,72,062.32 plus Rs.1,31,553/-) on the
basis of salvage value was not justified. He further submitted that the
complainant was not interested now in keeping the said salvage goods with him,
though, in the year 1995, the complainant had offered a sum of Rs.2,95,000/-
for the damaged stocks which was not accepted by the Insurance Company, at the relevant time.
36. The learned Counsel for the
complainant submitted that it would be open to the Insurance Company to sell or
destroy the said stocks. Learned Counsel for the complainant further submitted
that as far as the complainants were concerned, they had sought permission to
sell the damaged goods but no reply was given by the Insurance Company.
37. It is also true that today the damaged stock
would be of no use to the complainants or to the Insurance Company. Further,
considering the facts of the case that no action was taken by the complainants
or the Insurance Company for the disposal of the damaged stock, in our opinion,
it would be just and proper to reduce the salvage value of the goods to
Rs.2,00,000/- only, instead of Rs.5,03,616/-.
38. It is
also true that for the burnt stock, no assessment was made but the learned
Counsel for the opposite party Shri Mehra rightly submitted that the
complainant did not produce the documents at the relevant time showing the
exact stock position of the complainant on the date of the fire. Hence, there was no basis to assess the loss
to the goods which were totally burnt. We accept the said contention of the
learned Counsel Mr.Mehra.
39. In the result, the complaint is partly
allowed, as summarized below:
(i). For the building, the Insurance
Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,572/- plus Rs.2,41,000/- as stated
above, i.e., Rs.6,73,572/- (-)
Rs.50,000/- on account of salvage value
which comes to Rs. 6,23,572/-.
(ii). In respect of textile goods,
instead of deducting Rs.5,03,616/- from the value of
stock, the deduction would be Rs.2 lakh. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.3
lakh more, i.e., in all Rs.4,98,000/- (rounded)
(consisting of Rs.1,98,544/- as
assessed by the surveyor + Rs.3,00,000/-).
(iii). The complainant is also entitled
to get a sum of Rs.11,750/- towards the furniture, fittings and name board, as
assessed by the surveyor and a further sum of Rs.21,562.50 for electrical
fittings and exhaust fan.
40. In this view of the matter, the net
amount payable by the Insurance Company would be as under:
|
1. |
Building |
Rs.6,23,572 [Rs.6,73,572 (-) Rs.50,000 salvage value] |
|
2. |
Furniture, fitting and Name Board |
Rs. 11,750 |
|
3. |
Electrical fittings & Exhaust Fan |
Rs.
21,562.50 |
|
4. |
Stock of Textile Goods |
Rs.4,98,000 |
|
|
Total |
Rs.11,54,884.50 |
|
|
Less already paid in terms of this Commission’s
order dated 20.04.2006 |
Rs.5,75,425 |
|
|
The net amount payable by the Insurance
Company would be Rupees six lakhs thirty two thousand six hundred nineteen and
paise fifty only |
Rs.5,79,459.50, rounded off to Rs.5,79,500 |
41. The
alleged claim made by the complainant for compensation, cannot, however, be
justified and is rejected.
42. Hence,
the Insurance Company is directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,79,500/- (rounded)
to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1.8.1995, i.e.,
after six months from the date of the accident till its payment.
ORIGINAL PETITION No. 68 of
1998
43. This
complaint is filed by M/s. Pankaj Saree Emporium which was on the first floor
of the aforesaid building. Complainant lodged a claim for a larger amount.
However, M/s Team Surveyors assessed the loss by its report dated
Assessment of the loss
I. Sarees
and Ladies Apparels
44. Based on the
details furnished in our “extent of loss/ damage” column under sub-heading
“Sarees and Ladies Apparels” “without prejudice” the loss is assessed as below.
|
1. |
Value of sound goods |
Rs.1,78,903.00 |
|
|
|
Less : 80%
salvage value on selling rate |
Rs.1,43,122.40 |
|
|
|
(we have considered 20% loss on selling rate on
account of suspected damage due to smoke/wetness etc., though have been
segregated as sound item by the insured’s employees in our presence) |
Rs.
35,780.60 |
Rs.
35,780.60 |
|
2. |
Value of wet & stained sarees |
Rs.4,54,587.00 |
|
|
|
Less : 50% salvage value |
Rs.2,27,298.50 |
|
|
|
|
Rs.2.27.293.50 |
Rs.2,27,293.50 |
|
3. |
Value of partially burnt sarees |
Rs.
4,474.00 |
Rs.
4,474.00 |
|
|
Less : Salvage value |
NIL |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
Rs.2,67,548.10 |
Considering
20% profit margin on cost price, the actual value of loss is worked out = Rs. 2,67,548.10x100
= Rs.2,22,956.75
120
Assessed loss on stock of sarees/ ladies apparels = Rs.2,22,956.75.
II. Furniture,
Fittings Including Name Board
45. For
the aforesaid items the loss assessed is as under:
|
1. |
Repair/ replacement charges of furniture and
fittings |
Rs.20,550.00 |
|
|
Less : Salvage value |
Rs.
1,500.00 |
|
|
|
Rs.19,050.00 |
III. Vacuum
Cleaner, Tape Recorder and Franking Machine:
|
a. |
Vacuum Cleaner |
Rs.2,500.00 |
|
b. |
Tape Recorder |
Rs.2,500.00 |
|
3. |
Franking Machine |
Rs.2,000.00 |
|
|
Total |
Rs.7,000.00 |
Summary of Assessment
|
1. |
Stock – all types of sarees and ladies apparels |
Rs.2,22,956.75 |
|
2. |
Furniture & Fittings |
Rs.
19,050.00 |
|
3. |
Vacuum cleaner, Tape Recorder and Franking machine |
Rs.
7,000.00 |
|
|
Total |
Rs.2,49,006.75 |
46. Therefore the net assessed loss rounded
off comes to Rs.2,49,007/-.
47. Learned
Counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that there was no justifiable
ground in not assessing the loss for the stock of sarees and ladies apparels
which were burnt, on the basis of the stock statement submitted by the
complainant to the bank for hypothecation purposes. He further submited that,
in this set of circumstances, there was no justifiable reason for arriving at
the conclusion that the goods damaged due to smoke and wetness would fetch 80%
of their value. He submitted that once the sarees are damaged, they would not
fetch much value.
Same is the contention with regard to the wet and stained sarees for which the
salvage value was assessed at 50%.
48. With regard to the burnt sarees, the
learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the surveyor tried to
verify the accounts books of the complainant, but the complainant failed to
produce the same before the surveyor.
49. As in the previous complaint, the
learned Counsel for the complainant further submitted that today the damaged
sarees and ladies apparels would not fetch any value and the said stock kept by
the complainant
in his premises, could be taken away by the Insurance Company by paying full
amount as assessed by the surveyor.
50. It
is true that at present, the damaged sarees or ladies apparels would not fetch any value for
the Insurance Company or to the Complainant. At the same time, as the insured
had offered a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in the year 1995, we think that it is just
and proper to assess the value of the said salvage stock at Rs.50,000/-. Instead of deducting Rs.1,43,122.40
(80% salvage value of sound goods on
selling rate) and Rs.2,27,293.50 (50%
salvage value of wet and stained sarees), deduction would be only
Rs.50,000/-. This would mean that
deduction of Rs.3,20,000/- was unjustified. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,20,400/-.
51. In
the result, the insured is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,49,000/-
as assessed by the surveyor plus Rs. 3,20,400/- for the damaged goods (sarees
and ladies apparels).
52. In this
case also, it is admitted that on the basis of our order dated 20th
April, 2006, the Insurance Company has paid Rs.2,41,934/- with interest @ 12%
from 01st August, 1995. In this view of the matter, the Insurance
Company is directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,28,498.65
with interest @ 12% from
53. In
regard to the alleged claim of the complainant for compensation, in our view,
it cannot be justified and is rejected.
54. In
the result, the complaints are allowed accordingly. In Original Petition No. 30 of 1998 the Insurance
Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,79,500/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from 1.8.1995 to the
Complainant within a period of six weeks from today.
55. Similarly,
in complaint No. 68 of 1998, the Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.3,28,500/- (rounded figure) with
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1.8.1995, i.e. six months from the date
of the accident to the Complainant within a period of six weeks from today.
There
shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………J
[ M B Shah ]
President
………………………………
[
Rajyalakshmi Rao ]
Member
………………………………
[ Anupam Dasgupta ]
Member