AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 3.11.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2001.
THE District Forum, it is urged, awarded compensation which is highly inadequate. THE learned Counsel Mr. Paras Mani Goyel, Advocate, appearing for the appellant contended that the complainant had sought compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and the same should have been awarded to him. THE District Forum after duly considering the material placed on record recorded a categorical finding in Para 18 that there was patent deficiency in service on the part of respondents inasmuch as they did not settle or repudiate the claim of the complainant within a period of two months from the date of filing of the claim by the appellant. In para 20, the District Forum recording a firm finding of fact regarding the respondents committing deficiency in service in not allowing compensation for rotary fan 4 inch Rs. 1,170/- and Helipot Rs. 315/-. It was also held that the deficiency in service was committed by the respondents in not either repudiating the claim or in settling the claim within the time-frame of two months from the date of filing of the same by the appellant. THE compensation was assessed at a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which was ordered to be paid along with a sum of Rs. 26,814/- and also to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date two months after the date on which the claim was filed. Apart from it, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as costs of litigation. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not refer to any specific evidence led by the appellant for proving loss of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs which has been claimed as compensation.
The Hon''ble National Cousumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Mauli Chand Sharma, II (1995) CPJ 183 (NC), has held that the complainant is required to prove the actual loss suffered by him for which the compensation has been claimed. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum committed any error in awarding a compensation, which is not adequate. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.