NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION No. 2405 OF 2007

(From the Order dated 28.02.2007 in Appeal No. 68 of 2006 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh).

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd                                              Petitioner

Palia Kalan By-Pass Road

Lakhimpur Kheri through

Assistant Manager, Legal Cell

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

94 M G Marg,

Hazratganj,

Lucknow

 

Regional Office at

Jeevan Bharti

Level V, Tower II

Cannaught Circus

New Delhi

Through its Manager

 

Versus

Pal Singh                                                                               Respondent

Son of Shri Ugat Singh

Resident of Khaira Farm

Pargana Moodh

Tehsil Gola,

P S Bheera

District Kheri

Uttar Pradesh

 

BEFORE:     

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT

            MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

            MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

                       

For the Petitioner                              Shri Pramod Dayal, Advocate        

                                                            Shri Nikunj Dayal, Advocate

 

For the Respondent                          Shri Devvrat, Advocate

           

                       


Dated  the 20th November,  2007.

ORDER

            Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

            In complaint No. 191 of 1995, the District Forum by its order dated 21st April, 1998, directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of its payment. It also directed that in case the payment was not made within the aforesaid period, the rate of interest would be 18% per annum.

            Against that order, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal No. 1293 of 1998 (S/C) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh on 14th May, 1998.  On the stay application filed by the Insurance Company in the context of that appeal, the State Commission by its order dated 24th August, 1998 directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount awarded by the District Forum.

            The interim order is as under:

“Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and perused order dated 21st April, 1998 passed by District Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri in complaint case No. 191 of 1995.

Keeping in view of the facts of the case, it is directed that if the appellant complies with the order of the District Forum by depositing the entire amount within a period of six weeks from today by means of a F D R of a nationalized bank for a period three yeas in the name of the President of the District Consumer Forum then the operation of the above mentioned order shall remain stayed till the pendency of appeal. The warrant of arrest if issued shall also remain stayed.”

 

Hence, on 17th September, 1998 Insurance Company deposited an FDR for Rs.1,90,000/-. Thereafter the stay order continued.

 

Finally, the State Commission dismissed the appeal No. 1293 of 1998 (S/C) on 02nd August, 2005. After dismissal of the appeal, the complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum. The Insurance Company also preferred application in the said execution case, that the Insurance Company was entitled to recover Rs.83,488/- which had been paid in excess.

After hearing the parties, the District Forum, by its order dated 21st February, 2006 in Execution Case No. 242 of 1998, directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,600/- with a specific penal clause, viz., in case the amount is not paid within one month, the complainant would be entitled to compoundable interest @ 18% per annum and legal action in accordance with law would be taken.

Against that order the petitioner - Insurance Company preferred Revision Petition No. 68 of 2006. That Revision Petition was dismissed without verifying the records, by the State Commission by its order dated 28th February, 2007.

Against that order, this Revision Petition is filed.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that the State Commission has passed the order without verifying the facts and hence it is, on the face of it, erroneous. He submitted that against the original order passed by the District Forum on 21st April, 1998, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal. In that appeal, the Insurance Company had filed application for interim relief; that interim relief was granted by the State Commission by its order dated 24th August, 1998; and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount awarded by the District Forum. In compliance with that order, a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- was deposited by way of FDR on 17th September, 1998. He, therefore, contended that there was no question of paying any interest after 17th September, 1998. He further submits that the directions to pay penal interest @ 18% would not survive in view of the stay order granted by the State Commission. He, therefore, contended that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission took into consideration the relevant facts and passed the impugned orders.

As against this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was required to wait for the recovery of the amount for 11 years and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum did not call for any interference. He, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to recover the amount with interest as directed by the District Forum, i.e. to say, @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the payment and also @ 18% per annum for the delay.

In our view, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be justified because of the interim relief/ stay order granted by the State Commission. The State Commission directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount awarded by the District Forum with the District Forum in the form of FDR. That order was complied with by the Insurance Company. Complainant has not asked for modification of the said order nor for vacation of the said order nor he had applied for withdrawal of the said amount deposited with the District Forum. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with 12% interest from the date of accident, i.e., 05th October, 1994 till the date of its deposit, i.e., 17th September 1998. For that, interest amount comes to Rs.90,075/- Admittedly, that amount is not paid by the Insurance Company.

On the contrary, false and frivolous plea was raised in the execution case by the Insurance Company that it was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- as salvage value. Such type of frivolous plea has created difficulties for the complainant. No doubt, that plea was rightly rejected by the Executing Court by observing that Executing Court could not go beyond the original order.

Further, it is to be stated that on the basis of the FDR deposited by the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on 17.09.1998, the complainant recovered that amount with accrued interest on 28th September, 2005. That is to say, he received in all Rs.3,18,000/-.

In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum calculating the rate of interest @ 18% per annum requires to be set aside and directions to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,600/- is also required to be modified.

In the result, the Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,075/- which is the interest amount payable by it on the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the District Forum. The said amount shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today. The Insurance Company is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. In all, the Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,075/- within a period of four weeks from today to the complainant.

 

……………………………J

[ M.B. SHAH ]

President

 

 

 

 

……………………………

[ RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ]

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

……………………………

[ ANUPAM DASGUPTA ]

MEMBER

 

Satish – 11