Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

            The instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 02-04-2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in DF Case No. 73/2012 allowing the complaint ex parte against the Respondent/OP No. 1 and dismissing against the Respondent/OP No. 2 with the directions as quoted below:

“that the application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act is allowed on exparte against O.P. No. 1 and dismissed against O.P. No. 2.  The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay sum assured (Rs. 3,57,581/-) to the complainant together with interest @ 12% from the date of filing this case i.e. 27-4-2012 till realization.  The O.P. No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards cost of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant (because this complainant has already been saddled with the notice of the Sarfaesi Act due to the non-settlement of dues to the O.P. No. 1).  The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 45 days together with interest as stated above till full and final realization.  Complainant is at liberty to file execution before this Forum in case of non-execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of Copra, 1686. ….”.

            The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellant/Complainant, along with her husband, Rabindra Nath Acharya, since deceased, applied for sanction of a loan for construction of a residential house before the Respondent/OP No. 2 bank on observance of all formalities.  The Respondent/OP No. 2 bank sanctioned the loan and at the same time, in terms of the Agreement, made the husband of the Appellant/Complainant secure his life entering into a life insurance policy with the Respondent/OP No. 1 keeping the Appellant/ Complainant as nominee.  The said policy of an assured sum of Rs. 3,72,175/- for a single premium of Rs. 15,095/- was valid for a period of 20 years since the date of its initiation.

            Unfortunately, the husband of the Appellant/Complainant died in a motor accident within the policy period.  The Appellant/Complainant intimated the Respondents/OPs the details of the incident and submitted claim forms to the Respondent/OP No. 1 with all requisite formalities being observed.  Meanwhile, the Respondent/OP No. 2 bank issued Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Appellant/Complainant which was duly responded to by the Appellant/Complainant.  The Respondent/OP No. 2 bank also wrote to the Respondent/OP No. 1 requesting it to take action for early settlement of the claim but to no effect.  The Appellant/Complainant’s repeated requests for settlement of claim yielded her no favourable result.  The Appellant/ Complainant then, being aggrieved with the aforesaid deficiency in service of the Respondents/OPs, filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.

            Heard Ld. Advocates appearing for both sides.

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted that his Appeal is targeted against the rate of interest  and the period for accrual of interest as have been covered under the impugned order.

            The Ld. Advocate submitted further that the Ld. District Forum has failed to realize the gravity of the issue and allowed interest on the due compensation amount only @ 12% instead of 18% as claimed in the complaint and that too not from the date of death of the victim but from  the date of filing the complaint. 

            The Ld. Advocate continued that he did not have any other point to agitate and prayed for passing an order for payment of interest @ 18% since the date of death of the victim. 

            The Ld. Advocate went on to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4487/2004 [Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.], wherein, while passing the judgment of the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the decision of its order in another case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 9 wherein it was observed, “with a change of economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered.  The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year.  We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants” and allowed the Appeal in part with the direction upon the Respondent Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,05,00,817 with interest @ 9% as compensation from the date of assessment done by the Chartered Accountant, within two months from the date of the order.

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP No. 1 submitted that the Appellant/Complainant has been sufficiently compensated in the impugned order.  As submitted, the Commission is the right forum to decide what should be the actual rate of interest.  The Ld. Advocate concluded with his submission in succinct as above. 

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP No. 2 submitted that the complaint was not targeted against him.  The impugned order too did not contain any direction to be carried out by him, rather the complaint against him was dismissed without cost by the Ld. District Forum.  There is, therefore, no action to be taken by him. 

            The Ld. Advocate concluded with the above submission.

            Perused the papers on record.  It appears on perusal of the Memo of Appeal, as well as the arguments made by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant that he has agitated only in respect of the rate of interest upon the sum assured and the period of accrual of such interest as awarded in the impugned order.  The Ld. Advocate pleaded that the same should be @ 18% from the date of death instead of @ 12% from the date of filing as directed in the impugned order.  In the above context, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point of issue, we are of the considered view that the date of effect for awarding interest should be from the date of initiation of the cause of action, i.e., the date of death on the instant occasion but the interest should not be more than 9%. 

            We further hold that the compensation and interest on the sum assured cannot be awarded together, as such an award shall reach the benefit of unjust enrichment to the Appellant/Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

            that the Appeal is allowed in part with cost against the Respondent/OP No. 1 and dismissed against Respondent/OP No. 2.  The Respondent/OP No. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,57,581/- to the Appellant/Complainant with simple interest @ 9% from 23-03-2008, the date of death of the insured victim till the date of the instant order.  The Respondent/OP No. 1 is directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Appellant/ Complainant.  The entire sum has to be paid by the Respondent/OP No. 1 to the Appellant/Complainant within 45 days from the date of the instant order, failing which, further simple interest @ 9% shall accrue on the entire amount as ordered above since the date of default till the amount is fully paid.  The impugned order stands modified accordingly.