AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NON-payment of bonus against the P.L.I. policy is the main grievance of the complainant-respondent. NONe put in appearance for the consumer-respondent. Heard Mr. Satpathy, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order and the documents on record.
THE District Forum directed the appellant-opposite parties 2 and 3 to pay bonus due of Rs. 536/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the year 1984-85 till the amount is paid in full to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It further directed opposite parties 2 and 3 to be jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount and interest and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant for harassment, within the aforesaid period from the date of receipt of copy of the order. But the claims of the consumer-respondent for bonus, compensation and interest was negatived on the ground that the complainant could not produce any material to establish the quantum of loss of injury suffered by him because of delay in making payment of bonus, compensation and interest thereon. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the department as the case itself is not maintainable.
On perusal of the judgment as well as from the materials on record it is evident that admittedly there has been inordinate delay in making payment of bonus in question. The appellant-opposite parties have not paid amount on maturity and that fact was not disputed. It is proved beyond doubt that the appellants are clearly guilty of deficiency in service and cannot escape their burden of liability of making payment of bonus to the complainant.
THE contention of Mr. Satpathy on behalf of the appellant is that both compensation and interest cannot run together which, in our view, has got some force. In absence of any cogent proof of financial loss and mental agony on this account, the compensation sought by the complainant as decreed by the Forum below is not allowed by us. In view of the award of interest we are not making any order relatable to compensation for loss and mental agony alleged to have been suffered. But we see considerable merit in the contention that he is entitled to interest of only @ 12% per annum for the period that money was with the department. With this modification we ordered that there is nothing wrong in the order impugned. The appeal is partly allowed. The direction for payment of compensation is set aside. Rest part of the impugned order is confirmed. The order be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.