Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Yashowanta Narayan Dixit vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 7 February, 2020
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1241 OF 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)No.5080 of 2018)
Yashowanta Narayan Dixit ...Appellant
Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Respondent
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant presented a claim to the respondent- Insurance Company on account of the loss of stock in trade comprising of raw materials including Mustard Oil Seed, Mustard Oil in tanks and its by-products, which were damaged during the super cyclone which hit the appellant's business premises on 29th October, 1999. The claim was not honoured and as a result, CD Case No.197/2003 was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack (State Commission) making a claim of Rs.69,06,685/-.
3. The claim was adjudicated and damages were calculated at Rs.12,63,355/- as per purchase bills by the appellant. Owing to the financial necessity of the appellant, Signature Not Verified Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) were Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2020.02.14 17:35:59 IST directed to be paid to him by the respondent-Insurance Reason: Corporation by way of an interim order. Taking into 1 consideration the report of the surveyor and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, a lumpsum amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs) was awarded. We may notice that the claim arises from an incident of 1999 and the orders were passed only in the year 2007, after eight years, as aforesaid, with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). In this period of eight years, the appellant was deprived of the amount.
4. The respondent-Insurance Company preferred First Appeal No.51 of 2008 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (National Commission) and had obtained an interim order during the pendency of the appeal by deposit of part of the amount. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant. The appeal was ultimately taken up for hearing and decided vide order dated 29th August, 2013. The operative part of the order is as under:
"We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the present First Appeal. Appellant/Insurance company is directed to comply with the order of the State Commission and pay the awarded amount to the Respondent/Complainant within a period of 3 months."
5. It is a case of the respondent that they paid the amount as per the order of the State Commission i.e. Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs) within three months period of time i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- initially paid and the 2 balance amount a little over Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) was paid later. The appellant was not satisfied and preferred execution proceedings before the State Commission which directed the balance interest amount to be paid in terms of order dated 30th October, 2015. However, in the revision petition filed against the same, by the impugned order dated 17th March, 2017, it has been observed that the claim for interest was not justified.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are not in agreement with the view taken by the respondent-Insurance Company.
7. When any party approaches the appellate forum and obtains conditional order of stay, the deposit made is only to prevent the remaining amount being paid. If the appeal is lost, the whole amount becomes due as per of order/decree of the court below. In the present case the National Commission dismissed the appeal and thus observed that the amount had to be paid as per the order of the State Commission. Interim orders to protect the respondent in the interregnum period during the pendency of appeal certainly cannot affect the decree which arises out of the order of the State Commission though, naturally, the amount released to the appellant as a condition of stay would be adjusted against the amount due. The effect of the order of the National Commission was to reiterate the order of the State Comission which had directed payment of Rs.16,00,000/- by 31st March, 3 2008, failing, interest @ 9% from 1st November, 1999 would be chargeable. The amount was not deposited within that window, nor even interim order obtained, though soon after that the interim order was obtained. In our view, that would not make any difference.
8. We are of the view that order/decree of the State Commission must be implemented in its entirety and thus the view taken by the State Commission in execution proceedings vide order dated 30th October 2015 is the correct view and consequently the impugned order of the National Consumers Redressal Commission is liable to be set aside.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
......................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ......................J. [K.M.JOSEPH] New Delhi;
February 7, 2020.
4
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5080/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2017 in RP No. 29/2016 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) YASHOWANTA NARAYAN DIXIT Appellant(s) VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Respondent(s) Date : 07-02-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy,Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Seth,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.) 5