National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S Perfect Prints on 2 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 11.11.2010 in Execution Petition No. 08/2010 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2nd Floor, Jeevan Prakash, Sanjay Place, Agra 282 002 Through Chief Manager, Head Office: 86-88, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001 Appellant (s) Versus M/S. PERFECT PRINTS, Through its Sole Proprietor, Smt. Veena Gupta, Wife of Major Pradeep Gupta Factory Site E-118, UPSIDC Site C, Sikandara, Agra 282 011 Respondent(s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Appellant (s) Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate For the Respondent (s) Ms. Veena Gupta, Proprietor- Perfect Prints Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Ex-Major and Husband of Ms. Veena Gupta PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd JULY, 2012 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short the State Commission) in Execution Petition No. 08/2010. By the impugned order the State Commission has directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 25,93,724/- to the respondent-complainant besides the litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- with the stipulation that the payment of the entire amount shall be made till 09.12.2010 and if the payment is made before that date a deduction @ Rs. 757/- per day will be made from the payable amount but in case of delay in payment, the payment will be made by adding a sum @ Rs. 757/- per day. It was also directed that the payment shall be made within a period of one month and in case of default, the account of the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company at Agra will be seized by using the power under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. This case has a somewhat checkered history, which we deem necessary to recapitulate at the outset for appreciating the real controversy between the parties.
M/s. Perfect Prints, sole proprietor concern of Smt. Veena Gupta had filed a consumer complaint No. C/07/SC/96 before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Insurance Company in not settling its insurance claim and claiming a sum of Rs. 13,26,599/- with interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 4,85,511/- on account of liability, which was created by U.P.F.C. from 1.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment besides Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on a variety of grounds. After trial of the complaint, the State Commission partly allowed the said complaint vide an order dated 25.11.1998 in the following manner:
The complainant is allowed in part. The complainants claim of Rs. 11,20,479/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only), Rs. 3,000/- and the amounts actually paid by complainant to U.P.F.C. and D.I.C. Agra for the period mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment to be determined in execution proceedings shall also be payable by the Insurance Company.
The order shall be complied with within two months time failing which the damages in the form of interest @ 18% per annum will be payable on the total amount awarded.
Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rule.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company filed First Appeal No. 371 of 1998 before this Commission. This Commission partly allowed the said appeal vide order dated 10.02.2003 thereby modifying the aforesaid order of the State Commission in the following manner:
For these reasons and reasons mentioned in the impugned order we do not consider it a fit case to interfere with the grant of relief under the policy by the State Commission. However, we feel that allowing payments of Rs. 4,85,511/- i.e. the liability saddled on the Unit w.e.f. 1.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 being the amount payable to the UPFC on the disbursed loan to the complainants unit; Rs. 42,750/- the liability saddled on the complainant by the DIC, Agra on the disbursed integrated Margin Money Loan of Rs. 3 lakhs. These are not the risks that arose from or were covered under the policy and should not have been awarded by the State Commission. Accordingly, award of these amounts is struck down. While agreeing with the State Commission that the harassment, inconvenience and expenditure has resulted to the insured in pursuing his claim over such a long period, we uphold the award of compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. Further, we feel that the rate of interest is on the higher side and that the ends of justice will be met if the rate of interest is reduced from 18% to 12%. Except for the aforesaid modifications, the impugned order is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.
4. It would appear that not satisfied with the order dated 25.11.1998 passed by the State Commission, the complainant filed a Review Petition before the State Commission seeking interest on the awarded amount with effect from the date of the complaint. The said application was rejected by the State Commission vide order dated 21.04.1999.
Therefore, aggrieved by the original order dated 25.11.1998 and the order dated 21.04.1999 passed by the State Commission, on the Review Petition, the complainant filed a joint appeal FA No. 232 of 1999 before this Commission. The said appeal was disposed of by this Commission vide order dated 18.02.2003 by holding as under:
This appeal is filed after a delay of 191 days.
The application filed for condonation of delay does not disclose valid ground in support of condonation of the long delay in filing the appeal.
This appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
While granting stay in the connected appeal, i.e. First Appeal No. 371 of 1998, we had issued notice to the Respondent subject to deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs by the appellant, Insurance Company, with the Registrar of this Commission. Since that appeal which was filed by the Insurance Company has also been dismissed, the deposited amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with accrued interest may be released to M/s. Perfect Prints on its making an application for the purpose.
5. It would appear that aggrieved by the orders dated 10.02.2003 18.02.2003, the complainant-M/s. Perfect Prints filed Civil Appeal No. 9129 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 5894 of 2004 before the Honble Supreme Court and both these appeals were decided by the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.07.2009. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
Since the claim was not settled by the insurance company, the appellant filed a claim petition before the U.P. State Commission Consumer Protection, Lucknow on 12th January, 1996 which was allowed in part by the State Commission vide its judgment dated 25th November, 1998.
The State Commission apart from upholding the claim of Rs. 11,20,479/- also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment cost to the appellant and a cost of Rs. 3,000/- and also granted interest @ 18% per annum.
The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which has been disposed of by the National Commission by the order dated 10.02.2003. The National Commission has rejected the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of harassment compensation and also reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 12%.
On the facts of the case, we uphold the order of the State Commission for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment cost, in addition to the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the order of the State Commission till payment along with pendentelite interest on the principal amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till that date on which the principal amount was paid to the appellant. We also direct that the aforesaid payment shall be made within two months from the today.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
6. From the record it is discernible that certain amounts were paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant during the pendency of the appeal before this Commission and further amounts were paid after the appeals were disposed of by this Commission. According to the Insurance Company to satisfy the award as made by the State Commission and as modified by this Commission, according to the complainant the amounts so paid were much less than the amount which has become due and payable to the complainant under the orders of the Honble Supreme Court passed in the appeals filed by him in the order dated 23.07.2009 passed by the Supreme Court in his appeals. The complainant therefore filed an Execution Application No. 08 of 2008 before the State Commission seeking a direction on the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 11,35,058/-
after adjusting the amount of Rs. 23,21,306/-
received by the complainant from the Insurance Company. Along with the execution application, the complainant also filed report of a Chartered Accountant firm M/s. Vijay Bhargava & Associates in which the principal amount and amount payable towards the interest had been calculated. The State Commission allowed the said execution application with the aforesaid directions (Supra).
7. Aggrieved by the said order the insurance company first filed a Revision Petition No. 90 of 2011 which was dismissed by a Bench of this Commission as not maintainable by an order dated 15.11.2011 however holding that only an appeal lay against the order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Accordingly the present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company.
8. We have heard Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned counsel representing the appellant/Insurance Company Ex-Major Pradeep Gupta husband and authorized representative of Smt. Veena Gupta, sole proprietor of the complainant-Respondent and have considered their submissions. Having done so we are of the view that the controversy raised in the present appeal could have been appropriately resolved by the State Commission by making a correct and proper interpretation of the order passed by the State Commission in the complaint, the order passed by this Commission in appeals and lastly that passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the appeals filed by the complainant. The only controversy which has subsisted between the parties is as to what amount had become due and payable to the complainant pursuant to the said orders and after, what amount have been paid by the insurance company to the complainant at different stages and after adjusting the said amount whether any amount and if so, what further amount is payable by the insurance company to the complainant in terms of the said orders.
9. In our view, the order dated 23.07.2009 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9129 of 2003 and 5894 of 2004 is unambiguous and entertains no doubt as to what amount (s) is payable by the insurance company to the complainant on account of the principal amount towards the insurance claim, the interest on the said amount and towards the compensation. The Honble Supreme Court has taken note of the various proceedings, which were taken before the State Commission in the complaint and thereafter before the National Commission in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the complainant against the orders of the State Commission on 25.11.1998 and 21.04.1999. The State Commission while partly allowing the complaint of the complainant vide its order dated 25.11.1998 had directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.11,20,479/- as principal amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost along with interest @ 18% per annum.
In the appeal filed by the insurance company, this Commission vide its order dated 10.02.2003 modified the said order of the State Commission by deleting the award of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards harassment and also reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12% per annum. From a reading of the penultimate paragraph of the order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 23.07.2009, it is manifest that the Supreme Court has modified the order of this Commission in the following manner and finally directed as under:
(i) Award of the principal amount of Rs. 11,20,479/- as awarded by the State Commission has been upheld;
(ii) Order of the State Commission awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards harassment caused has been upheld;
(iii) Interest @ 12% per annum is payable on the principal amount from the date of the filing of the complaint till that date on which the principal amount was paid;
(iv) Interest @ 12% per annum is also payable on the amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- with effect from the date of the order of the State Commission i.e. 25.11.1998.
10. Mr. Kishore Rawat has contended that the above is the correct interpretation of the order made by the Honble Supreme Court. It is, however, contended on behalf of the complainant-respondent that the interest @ 12% per annum is payable twice on the principal amount.
We reject this contention because it will amount to absurdity. What the Supreme Court has said and could have intended to say is that the interest @ 12% per annum was also payable on the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the harassment cost with effect from the date of the order passed by the State Commission i.e. 25.11.1998 till the date of the payment. However, the interest @ 12% per annum was payable on the principal amount awarded by the State Commission with effect from the date of the filing of the complaint till the payment of the principal amount by the insurance company. It appears that the State Commission has not interpreted the said order in the correct manner and has largely gone by the report submitted by a certain Chartered Accountant and has directed the insurance company to pay the said amount. In our view, the said order has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore, deserves to be set aside.
11. Based on the above interpretation of the Supreme Courts judgment, we directed Mr. R.M. Naidu, Accounts Officer of this Commission to work out the further amount, if any, payable by the appellant Insurance Company to the respondent after adjusting the amounts already paid by the Insurance Company on different dates. As per the calculation (Annexure
1), the Accounts Officer of this Commission has worked out that a sum of Rs.3,53,983/- would be payable by the Insurance Company to the complainant, if the amount is paid by 31.07.2012.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The insurance company is directed to make the above-payment, i.e., Rs.3,53,983/-, to the respondent / complainant by 31.07.2012 positively failing which further interest shall be payable in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court. No order as to costs in these proceedings.
.....
(R. C. JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER SB/2