State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bob Housing Fin.Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar Khemka on 23 October, 2009
Appeal No.1797/06 BOB Housing Finance Ltd. V. Ashok Kumar Khemka Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Rajendra Salecha,counsel for the appellant Shri Praveen Purohit,counsel for the respondent Date of Judgement: 23.10.09 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were ops before the District Forum-II,Jaipur against the order dated 29.8.06 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur in complaint no.600/05,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs.25,783/-, the amount charged by them as preclosure charges from the complainant respondent within two months with interest @ 9% p.a wef 15.12.04 and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation interalia holding that since in respect of charging of Rs.25783/- as preclauser charges there was no agreement between the parties and therefore,charging of Rs.25,783/- was not found justified.
Aggrieved from that order this appeal has been filed by the appellants and in this appeal the main contention of the learned 2 counsel for the appellants is that since the amount in question of loan had been paid by the complainant respondent in advance and,therefore,in such cases as per practice,preclauser charges are levied by the banks and thus the appellants were rightly charged that amount and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In our considered opinion,since in this case there was no agreement between the parties for charging the preclauser in case of loan was paid in advance,therefore in absence of that the appellants were not justified for charging Rs.25,783/- as preclauser charges from the complainant respondent and the District Forum had rightly held that this amount was wrongly charged by the appellants and thus the appellants were not justified in charging Rs.25,783/-.
Thus we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Fourm as they are based on correct apprection of evidence on record. Hence no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 29.8.06 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur and this appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Member President
Appeal No.1979/08
Manager,J.V.V.N.L.,Jaipur
& anr. V. Chaturbhuj
Before
Mr.Justice
Sunil Kumar Garg-President
Mrs.Vimla
Sethiya-Member
Shri
Paras Jain,counsel for the appellants Shri Dharmendra Pareek,counsel for the respondent Date of Judgement: 23.10.09 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
This appeal has been filed by the appellants RSEB which were ops before the District Forum,Sawai Madopur against the order dated 27.8.08 passed by the District Forum,Sawai Madhopur in complaint no.93/08,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent has allowed in the manner that the amount of Rs.12,000/- of the bill of July,2005 issued against the complainant respondent was quashed.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants RSEB before the District Forum,Sawai Madhopur on 5.3.08 interalia stating that he had got an electric connection bearing a/c no.1509-0033 and VCR dated 10.3.07 was filled in up by the appellants against the complainant respondent and a case of theft was made by the appellants against 2 the complainant respondent and in that respect of VCR no.1721/06 dated 10.3.07 a complaint was filed by the appellants before the Judicial Magistrate,Sawai Madhopur on 30.7.05 and thereafter the criminal case was committed to the court of Session Judge,Sawai Madhopur and the complainant respondent was charged for committing offences u/s 135 of Electricity Act,2003 and in Session Trial no.56/05 the complainant respondent was found guilty of committing the offences u/s 135A of Electricity Act,2003 and fine for Rs.12,500/-was imposed by the learned Session Judge through judgement dated 28.2.06 and in default of payment of fine,the complainant respondent was further ordered to have to undergo for a simple imprionment for five months.
The case of the complainant respondent in the complaint before the District Forum was that since through bill dated March,08 a sum of Rs.12480/- were going to be recovered on the basis of the VCR dated 10.3.07 and since in the criminal case he had deposited a fine of Rs.12500/-,therefore,now the amount of Rs.12,480/- which was found mentioned in the bill of March,08 could not be got recovered as in that place he had deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- in a criminal case under the head fine and thus the amount of that bill be quashed.
A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum on 3.4.08 and the case of the appellants was that depositing of Rs.12500/- in a criminal case as a fine was altogether different matter and the complainant respondent could not get the benefit of that in respect of the amount of arrears shown in the bill of March,08 to the tune of Rs.12,480/- and thus it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order had allowed the complaint as stated above, interalia holding that the amount of Rs.12500/- which was paid by the complainant respondent as fine in a criminal case be adjusted towards the amount of Rs.12480/- mentioned in bill of March,08 and thus this amount of Rs.12480/- was quashed.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one as if a fine has been imposed in a criminal case and the same had been paid by the accused in the criminal case,he could not get the benefit of that amount in civil proceedings against the same person for the same cause of action and,therefore,the findings recorded by the District Forum be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the the record.
In our considered opinion,the position of law is very clear on the point that there could not be an adjustment of fine amount against the civil decree. Thus it is held that the appellants RSEB could not take into account the amount of fine deposited by the complainant respondent in a criminal case and thus the appellants RSEB were not justified in recovering the amount of Rs.12480/- of the electric bill of March,08.
4For reasons as stated above,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the amount of Rs.12000/- was ordered not be recovered from the complainant respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed.
The result is that this appeal filed by the appellants RSEB is allowed,impugned order dated 27.8.08 passed by the District Forum,Sawai Madhopur is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant respondent stands dismissed. It is made clear that the complainant respondent is under legal obligation to deposit the amount of bill of March,08 to the tune of Rs.12480/- and for that one months' time is granted to deposit that amount.
Member President
Appeal No.411/04
The
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Jaipur Appellant V. Chandan Mal(now deceased) and His Legal Heirs-
1.Smt.Anachhi Devi,w/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Manakchand Chhajed S/o Late Shri Chandan Mal r/o Lkharo Kan Bans,Ward no.5,Balotara,Barmer Respondents
2.Appeal No.474/04 Chandan Mal(now deceased) and His Legal Heirs-
1.Smt.Anachhi Devi,w/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Manakchand Chhajed S/o Late Shri Chandan Mal r/o Lkharo Kan Bans,Ward no.5,Balotara,Barmer Appellants V. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Jaipur.
Respondent Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member Shri Rishi Pal Agarwal,counsel for the appellant Shri Rajesh Mootha,counsel for the respondent Date of Judgement: 23.10.09 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
2The abovementioned to appeals are being decided by this common judgement as both have been preferred against the order dated 22.1.04 passed by the District Forum,Barmer in complaint no.58/03.
Appeal No.411/04 This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company which was op before the District Forum, against the order dated 22.1.04 passed by the District Forum,Barmer in complaint no.58/03,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent Chandan Mal,now deceased was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint and further to pay Rs.500/- as amount of cost of litigation.
Note:
During the pendency of this appeal the complainant respondent Chandan Mal had died and the abovementioned legal heirs are taken on record.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the deceased complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Barmer on 26.2.03 interalia stating that he had taken a Janta personal accident policy no. 241100/47/98/50001 from the appellant insurance company under the scheme of Small Savings Department,Govt. of Rajasthan under the agreement executed between the Director,Small Savings Department,Rajasthan and Oriental Insurance Company for the 3 period effected from 1.3.98 to 28.2.2003. It was further stated in the complaint that on 29.2.2000 during the pendency of the policy, an accident had taken place and he had received injuries and he was got admitted in the Balotara Hospital and further as a result of the accident one hand and one leg of the deceased complainant respondent were badly damaged. It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter a claim was preferred with the office of the appellant insurance company for claiming Rs.1 lac.Since the payment was not paid by the appellant insurance company,therefore,the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Barmer on 9.9.03 interalia stating that since the complainant respondent was not having any amputation of any part of his body as required under the terms and conditions of the policy,therefore,the claim was not payable and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed .
The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 22.1.04 had allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent against the appellant insurance company placing reliance on the terms and conditions of the policy (g) and taking into consideration that the medical certificate issued in favour of the complainant respondent had shown that he was having 40% disability,therefore,a sum of Rs.50,000/- were ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant respondent.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel 4 for the appellant insurance company is that since the disability shown in the medical certificate is only 40% and,therefore,the case of the deceased complainant was not covered under the terms and conditons of the policy and the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In this case so far as the fact that the deceased complainant respondent had taken the Janata Personal Accident policy under the said Scheme is not in dispute and there is also no dispute on the point that he had received fractures in his one hand and one leg for which a certificate of 40% disability was issued by the Doctor. There is also no dispute on the point that during the pendency of the appeal the original complainant respondent had died.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the case of the appellant insurance company that since there was no amputation of any part of the body,therefore,claim was not payable could not be appreciated as if a person had got fractures and from that 40% disability had been occurred to an old man of 70 years, therefore,to say that claim was not payable would be nothing but an arbitrary exercise on the part of the appellant insurance company.
For reasons as stated above, we are in agreement with the 5 findings recorded by the District Forum in the impugned order dated 22.1.04 as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and are liable to be confirmed one. Hence no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the District Forum and this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Appeal No.474/04 This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation on behalf of the complainant.
In our considered opinion,the amount as ordered by the District Forum in the impugned order dated 22.1.04 appears to be just and no case for enhancement is made out. Hence this appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Member President