State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Ghanshyam Ramdayal Rathi on 10 February, 2015
A/10/27 1/5
A-10-27-10022015
Adv. Mr S H Jain is present for the appellant. Adv. Mr S P Deshpande is present for the respondent.
ORDER
(Passed on 10.02.2015) Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is preferred by the original respondent (hereinafter referred as appellant), against the order dtd.11.12.2009 passed in Execution Application bearing No.MA/47/2009, passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravati.
The facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are as under:-
2. The respondent herein had filed a consumer complaint bearing No. CC/66/1998 before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati against the appellant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum after hearing both the parties partly allowed that complaint and directed the appellant to pay to the respondent herein Rs.1,91,293/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 02.01.1998 till the date of that order and also to pay him compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/-. The Forum below also directed that the said order be complied with within 45 days from the date of order and in case of default, the respondent herein will be entitled to recover the said amounts with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of the same.
3. The respondent then filed execution application before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, claiming total Rs.7,46,549.15 from the appellant as the aforesaid order was A/10/27 2/5 not complied with by the appellant. The appellant appeared before the Forum in that Execution Application and deposited Rs.3,34,859/- with the Forum vide chq. No.307942 dtd. 04.01.2010. The appellant also submitted in that application that an amount of Rs.1,04,986/- was payable by the respondent to a financer and as per terms of the policy the appellant paid the said amount to the financer. The appellant also submitted that Rs.23,368/- have been deducted towards tax deduction at source (TDS) out of the amount which was to be paid by it to the respondent herein. The appellant also filed a separate Pursis before the District Consumer Forum in that execution proceedings, stating therein that it paid further balance amount of Rs.2,57,857/- by Chq. No.303825 dtd.23.10.2009 to the respondent herein.
4. The appellant then filed an application before the Forum in that execution proceedings,, requesting that Rs.1,04,986/- paid by it to the financer be certified as payment out of the original order passed by the Forum in the complaint. The Forum after hearing both the parties on that application made for certification, passed the impugned order on 11.12.2009. The Forum observed in the impugned order that the payment of Rs.1,04,986/-, alleged to have been made on 31.03.1998, cannot be said to be made in compliance of the final order dtd.30.09.2008 passed in the original complaint against the appellant. The Forum also observed in the impugned order that the appellant also did not inform the Forum during the A/10/27 3/5 pendency of the original complaint bearing CC/66/98 about said payment of Rs.1,04,986/- to the financer of the respondent as per terms of the policy and that the appellant also did not get certification of that amount under appeal preferred by it against the original order passed in the complaint. The Forum also found that the amount deducted towards TDS by the appellant is also not proper. Therefore, the Forum concluded that the certification as requested by the appellant cannot be made. The Forum rejected both the applications of the appellant, made for certification of payment of Rs.1,04,986 made to the financer and payment of Rs.23,368/- towards deduction of income tax at source (TDS).
5. Today we have heard advocates of both parties and perused the documents and Written Notes of Arguments filed on record.
6. The learned advocate of the appellant has argued that from the documents produced on record, it is proved that the appellant made payment of Rs.1,04,986/- to the financer of the respondent as per terms of the policy and hence the said amount should have been adjusted towards the balance amount due from the appellant in pursuance of the original order passed in the complaint. Thus, according to him the Forum erred in properly considering the documents filed on record and therefore, he requested that the impugned order may be set aside and the application made by the appellant for certification may be allowed holding that Rs.1,04,986/- are paid A/10/27 4/5 to the financer of the appellant and TDS of RS.23,368/- are deducted on account of Income Tax and the said amount be shown as paid in compliance of the original order passed in the complaint. He lastly requested that the execution application (EA) may be dismissed.
7. On the other hand the learned advocate of the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the respondent already paid to the financer whole amount as due from him and hence if any payment is made by the appellant to the said financer, that cannot be considered as in compliance of the original order passed in the complaint by the District Consumer Forum. He further submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the aforesaid amount has been paid by the appellant to the financer of the respondent towards the claim of the respondent from the appellant. He also argued that no amount can be deducted towards income tax by the appellant. He therefore requested that the appeal may be dismissed.
8. In our view, when the original order dtd.30.09.2000 passed in original complaint No.CC/66/98 does not show that any amount to be paid to the financer of the respondent, the payment if any made by the appellant to his financer therefore cannot be said to be in compliance of the said original order.
9. The original order passed in the complaint shows that the payments be made by the appellant to the respondent with A/10/27 5/5 interest. Therefore, payment made by the appellant to any other authority or a person cannot be considered as payment made towards the satisfaction of the order passed in the original complaint.
10. The financer of the respondent was neither party to the original complaint nor to the execution application, discussed above. Therefore, the contract in between the appellant and the said financer or in between the said financer and respondent herein cannot have any bearing on the compliance of the final order passed in the original complaint.
11. In our view, the original order passed in complaint has not authorised the appellant to deduct income tax at source and hence deduction of the same cannot be said to be proper compliance of impugned order.
12. In the result, we find that the impugned order is legal, correct and proper and needs no interference in the appeal.
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost in appeal.
iii. Copies of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
[ B. A. SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [ S. B. SAWARKAR ] MEMBER sj