Haryana

StateCommission

RP/35/2016

SANDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMB.MOTOR INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH KUMAR GARG

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision petition No.35 of  2016

 Date of the Institution:02.06.2016

Date of Decision: -18.07.2016

 

Sandeep  Singh son of Sh.Baldev Singh r/o Adarsh Nagar, Moar Mohalla Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                                                   .….Revisionist/Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co.Limited IInd Floor, SCO 253, Sector -12, Near City Centre, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2.Indusland Bank Limited S.C.O. 53-54, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Legal Executive.

 

                                                                   .….Contesting Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present: -   Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

                   

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   Revisionist is trying to follow the principle of “Heads I win Tales you loose” in this case. Instead of returning amount to the financer he wants to keep the compensation also with him whereas vide order dated 09.12.2014 learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (in short ‘District Forum’) directed insurance company firstly to pay loan amount to the financer.

2.                Brief facts leading to this dispute are that Revisionist filed complaint on 11.08.2011 alleging that his truck bearing No.HR-32D-0162 was stolen on 1.05.2008, which was insured by respondent No.2 for the period from 17.05.2007 to 16.05.2008 and insured value (IDV) was Rs.14,50,000/-. He submitted all the documents with insurance company but no compensation was paid.

3.                Insurance Company filed reply raising objections about territorial jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint, delay in an information and not taking proper care etc. It was also alleged that complainant had already sold vehicle to Wazir Singh, who was shown as owner. So he was not having any insurable interest. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.                Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 filed separate reply alleging that complainant purchased this truck raising loan of Rs.15,15,000/- from it, which was repayable to the tune of Rs.19,21,632, including interest,  in 46 monthly installments upto 21.03.2010.  Loan agreement dated 21.03.2006 was executed to this effect. He did not pay regular installment and that is why matter was taken to Arbitrator for recovery of Rs.11,48,705/- alongwith interest  @ 18 % per annum. Execution petition was pending qua this case before Additional District Judge wherein following order was passed:

“Adjourned to 24.07.2010 for filing of objections, in the meanwhile no amount be released in favour of Sandeep Singh, complainant on basis of order dated 03.03.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind without seeking prior permission from this Court”

 

It was having lien over the truck and was entitled to recover that amount. Complainant concealed this fact from District Fora.

 

3.                After hearing both the parties the District Forum, Jind allowed the complaint vide order dated 09.12.2014 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.14,50,000/- i.e. insurable value of truck. We further directed to opposite party No.1 to make the payment first to opposite party No.2 towards satisfaction of outstanding loan amount. The order be complied within 45 days from the order of this complaint. In case of failure, the opposite party No.1 will also pay a simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.8.2011 till its full realization”

 

4.                          Complainant  filed petition to execute order dated 09.12.2014 wherein impugned order dated 11.05.2016 was passed to the effect that Rs.19,84,871/-  be disbursed to JD No.2 after furnishing necessary bonds etc.

5.                         Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionist/ complainant has preferred this revision on the ground that Ld. District Forum has no concern with the award passed during arbitration proceedings. It was only concerned about the compensation to be paid to the complainant and cannot order to pay the same to Opposite Party No.2 (in short, O.P.) .  Impugned order, passed to this effect is altogether wrong and be modified accordingly.

6.                          Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.                          Learned counsel for the revisionist/ complainant argued that vide order dated 01.09.2009 Arbitrator has granted following relief to O.P. No.2:

                             “(i)     The claim sum of Rs.11,48,705/- (Rupees                                            Eleven Lakhs Forty eight thousand seven                                            hundred and fine only) and

                             (ii)      A sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and                                              fifty only).”

The District Forum has no right to execute that order and cannot ask to pay the amount to O.P.No.2. There are  independent proceedings. So, impugned order about payment to O.P.No.2 be set aside.

8.                          This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of main order dated 09.12.2014, it is clear that O.P.No.1, was directed to pay Rs.14,50,000/- to O.P.No.2 alongwith simple interest @ 9 % per annum. It means that said amount was to be paid to O.P.No.2 alongwith interest as mentioned above. It is nowhere, proved that order dated 09.12.2014 is set aside or modified by any appellate authority. So, it cannot be alleged that the amount is not payable to O.P.No.2.

9.                          As far as the question of amount is concerned, O.P.No.1 is liable to pay the same to O.P.No.2 alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum. Executing Court cannot go beyond the main order. Firstly, the amount is to be adjusted against loan amount and thereafter the same to be paid to the complainant. The District Forum has not interfered with the order passed by the Arbitrator. It has directed to make payment as per main order dated 09.12.2014 i.e. Rs.14,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 11.08.2011. Had executing court modified or changed order dated 09.12.2014 then it would have been different matter.  Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

 

July,18th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench