DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Execution Application No : 21/2015
Date of Institution : 03.06.2015
Date of Decision : 16.07.2015
United India Insurance Company through its Authorized Signatory, Divisional Office, Sangrur.
…Applicant
Versus
Harwinder Kaur widow of Bhupinder Singh son of Bhag Singh resident of Village Uggoke, Tehsil Tappa District Barnala.
The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Sangrur through its Chief Manager.
The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Pakho Kanchiyan, Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
…Respondents
Execution Application under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Ashish Kumar Garg counsel for applicant.
Sh. D.S. Dhaliwal counsel for respondent No. 1.
Sh. K.R. Goel counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The applicant namely United India Insurance Company has filed Execution Application U/s 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, against Harwinder Kaur respondent No. 1 and the Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., respondents No. 2 & 3.
2. In the application it is averred that Harwinder Kaur respondent No. 1 filed a complaint bearing No. 292 dated 28.10.2013 against the CASS Society and others, which was allowed vide order dated 9.4.2014 and this Forum directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of accident of late Sh. Bhupinder Singh husband of respondent No. 1. This Forum further directed the respondents No. 2 & 3 to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to Harwinder Kaur complainant. It is further averred that respondents No. 2 & 3 filed an appeal bearing No. 698 of 2014 against the impugned order dated 9.4.2014 before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2014. The respondents No. 2 & 3 also deposited Rs. 5,000/- before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, at the time of institution of the above said appeal. However, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, ordered for the remittance of Rs. 5,000/-, deposited by the respondents No. 2 & 3 to Harwinder Kaur complainant i.e. now respondent No. 1 after the expiry of 45 days. It is also averred that the applicant also paid Rs. 50,000/-, interest Rs. 9,518/- and Rs. 10,000/- regarding litigation expenses i.e. total Rs. 69,518/- to Harwinder Kaur respondent No. 1. Therefore, in this manner the applicant paid Rs. 10,000/- excess to Harwinder Kaur complainant/respondent No. 1, which is liable to be refunded to the applicant. The applicant requested the respondents to refund Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% from 16.5.2014, but all in vain. Hence, the present Execution Application is filed directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. In reply to the Execution Application, the respondent No. 1 has taken the legal objections on the grounds of locus-standi, act and conduct of the applicant, execution application is false and frivolous etc. On merits, it is averred that as per the order of this Forum and as per their calculation, they paid the above said amount to the respondent No. 1 and prayed for the dismissal of Execution Application.
4. The respondents No. 2 & 3 also filed reply to the Execution Application taking preliminary objections on the grounds of Execution Application is false and frivolous, executants are estopped by their act and conduct. On merits, It is averred that the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, passed the order that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1/complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the applicant only. It is also averred that the applicant paid Rs. 50,000/-, interest Rs. 9,518/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to Harwinder Kaur and finally prayed for the dismissal of Execution Application.
5. Perusal of the order dated 9.4.2014 passed by this Forum shows that Harwinder Kaur widow filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the CASS and others for compensation on account of death of her husband, which was allowed by this Forum and directed the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The respondents No. 2 & 3 were also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 1 and against this order an appeal was filed by the opposite parties, which was dismissed.
6. Perusal of the award calculation sheet placed on record by the United India Insurance Company Limited, shows that in compliance of the order of this Forum, they paid Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 9,518/- as interest and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation amounting to Rs. 69,518/-.
7. Now the plea of the insurance company is that they have paid Rs. 10,000/- as excess amount and they want to recover the amount in grab of this Execution Application U/s 25 and 27 of the Act. It is relevant to mention that Section 25 relates to enforcement of orders of District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission and Section 27 relates to impose fine or punishment for non compliance of the order.
8. Perusal of the order of this Forum dated 9.4.2014 shows that the complaint was accepted against insurance company as well as against CASS Ltd. In compliance of this order, the insurance company has paid the amount as per their calculation to the tune of Rs. 69,518/- through cheque. Even, an appeal was filed against the order of this Forum, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2014 by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab. In the appeal there is no observation or order to show that the insurance company have ever pleaded of excess payment of Rs. 10,000/-.
9. As discussed above, the Execution application lies for enforcement of the order of this Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that any such refund order has been passed by any Authority. Therefore, the present Execution Application filed by the insurance company/applicant is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the applicant is at liberty to seek remedy if any available as per law in other competent Court. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of July, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
