ORDER

1.       The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 06.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 208/2015 inter alia praying to pass orders allowing the prayers made in CC/208/2015 and pass order awarding a further compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-.

2.       The Appellant was Complainant and the respondent(s) were OPs in the said CC/208/2015 before the State Commission.  Notice was issued to the Respondents.  Respondents filed counter affidavit on 29.09.2022; Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 21.02.2022 (Petitioner/Complainant) and 23.11.2023 (Respondents/OPs) respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that:-

4.       Vide Order dated 06.09.2017, the State Commission has allowed the complaint and directed OPs (OP-1, 2 & 3) to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant together with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

5.       Appellants has challenged the Order dated  of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

6.       In the Counter affidavit filed by OPs/Respondents, they have stated as follows:-

7.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FA, based on their FA/Reply, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.       The Appellant has challenged the order of the State Commission only with regard to quantum of compensation.  In her complaint, she has sought a compensation of Rs.75 lakhs while the State Commission awarded only Rs.5 lakhs.  Hence, the limited question to be seen in the present First Appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation, as question of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents has already been decided by the State Commission and this order has not been challenged by the Respondents, and hence has become final against the Respondents herein.  During the hearing on 12.02.2024, Counsel for the Appellant herein stated that the Appellant would be willing to use a major portion of the compensation awarded by this Commission for the public welfare by way of creating a trust in the memory of their deceased daughter and such amount/interest on such amount, which can be put as corpus, can be used for helping poor girls for their education/health.  Hence, the Appellant herein was directed to file on Affidavit their proposal in this giving broad contours of such a proposal.  In compliance of the said order, the Appellant filed an Affidavit dated 26.02.2024 expressing their willingness to utilize some amount of the compensation for charitable purposes by creating a trust with certain corpus fund out of the compensation to help in providing education to poor girls etc.  The Counsel for the Appellant submitted during the final hearing on 19.03.2024 that as the financial condition of the Appellant is not that good, they may be given at least some amount of additional compensation by this Commission and the rest can be used as corpus for the proposed trust for charitable purposes.  The Counsel for Respondents on the other hand submitted during the hearing that in case this Commission decides to accept the request of the Appellant for putting some amount compensation as corpus in the proposed trust, a representative of the respondent organization i.e. ESI Corporation, especially the officer based at Hyderabad, may be opted as one of the member of the proposed trust. 

9.       In the Affidavit dated 26.02.2024 (filed on 28.02.2024), the Appellant has stated as follows:-

“ 2.  I humbly submit that on 12-02-2024 my counsel has submitted arguments on my behalf. During the arguments, my counsel submitted t