Punjab

Ludhiana

EA/17/41

Vandana Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.I.C. Of India Zonal Office Ludhiana - Opp.Party(s)

LD Gupta adv

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                      Execution Application No:41 dated 18.05.2017       

                                            Date of decision: 20.02.2023. 

Vandana Goyal w/o Late Sh.Rakesh Kumar Goyal r/o 330-A, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                     Decree holder/complainant.

                                                Versus

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office Jeevan Bharti, 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 01, through its Zonal Manager.

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager.

3.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office Unit No.2, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

4. Life Insurance Corporation of India¸ Branch Office, Ludhiana-IIII, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana.

Judgment Debotrs/Opposite parties

Execution U/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Consumer Complaint No.752 of 11.09.2012 decided on 26.06.2013

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For decree holder/complainant                   :         Sh.L.D.Gupta, Advocate

For judgment debtors/opposite parties       :         Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Decree holder/complainant has filed the present execution application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for enforcement/execution of order dated 26.06.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.752 of 11.09.2012. It has been submitted that the complainant/decree holder being nominee of her deceased husband Sh.Rakesh Kumar Goyal filed a claim with regard to payment of insured amount of the polices i.e.policy No.300458893 and another policy No.300146173 for a sum of Rs.2 lac each along with accrued bonus, profits and all other incidental benefits. The Learned Predecessor of this Commission on 26.06.2013 allowed the complaint and was pleased to pass the following orders:-

“Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to issue a fresh cheque amounting to Rs.1,63,000/- as calculated and approved by them on account of paid up value and bonus accrued in policy o.300146173. Further the OPs are directed to pay the ‘sum assured’ plus ‘bonus accrued’ under the policy No.300458893 to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date it becomes payable as per the policy terms and conditions. Further for causing harassment and thrusting litigation OPs are directed to pay Rs.8000/-(Eight thousands only) as compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. Failing which, OPs are directed to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. File be consigned to record room.”

                   Aggrieved against the first part of the order, the complainant filed First Appeal No.963 of 2013 before the Hon’ble State Commission and the same was dismissed on 06.10.2016 finding no merit in the appeal. Decree holder/complainant sought the execution of the order dated 26.06.2013 and prayed for the relief granted to her.

 2.               LIC/Judgment debtors filed the reply to the execution application and have assailed the maintainability of the execution application. Further, it has been submitted that the JDs had already complied with the order of the Forum by depositing a sum of Rs.1,06,300/- in the Hon’ble Forum vide cheque No.054674 dated 12.08.2013 in favour of Vandana widow of Rakesh Kumar Goyal on 21.08.2013. The complainant had failed to collect the said cheque from the Hon’ble Forum and as such with the passage of time, it was lapsed and a fresh cheque was deposited vide cheque No.745281 dated 18.02.2017 for Rs.1,06,300/- in favour of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana vide application dated 28.02.2017 and receipt dated 3.3.2017. The complainant has already withdrawn the said amount as is evident from the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by this Forum. Further, it has been submitted that there was a clerical/typographical mistake/omission in the award dated 26.06.2013 which was delivered to the JDs on 18.07.2013 vide Sr.No.2947. Further, it is submitted that it is evident from the order dated 26.06.2013 that a sum of Rs.1,06,300/- is payable towards the payment of the claim under the policy and not Rs.1,63,000/- as stated in the award. It is clearly held in para no.9 and 10 page no.15 of the award as under:-

“We are of the opinion that the Opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant under the impugned policy No.300146173 on account of concealment of fact at the time of revival of the policy which is under obligation to disclose. On the other hand, it is clear that the complainant is entitled for the paid up value and bonus as has been calculated and recommended by the opposite parties in the above said policy No.300146173. The calculation is given on page no.6 as under:-

Paid up value of the policy i.e. Rs.62500/-

Vested bonus Rs.43800/- and total comes to Rs.1,06,300/-.”

It has been further submitted that instead of writing the word Rs.1,06,300/-, this Hon’ble Forum on account of typographical mistake had written the following words in para no.10 and para no.14 which was again written in relief para no.15 as Rs.1,63,000/- in respect of which an application was moved for correction. Further, in the preliminary objections, JDs have also referred the contents of the award/judgment as contained in para no.6, 10, 14, 15. Further, it has been submitted that perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Forum clearly proves that the DCDRF, Ludhiana had held that the OP was justifying in repudiating the claim of the complainant but since as submitted by counsel for the complainant that the validity of cheque of Rs.1,06,300/- issued in favour of the complainant has expired and as such, the Forum has only directed to issue a fresh cheque as per the calculation approved by LIC of India in policy No.300146173 but wrongly wrote it as Rs.1,63,000/-. There is as such a typographical mistake in the award and it is not a review of the order. The complainant cannot take the benefit of the typographical mistake in the award. The award has been fully satisfied. Fresh cheque amounting to Rs.1,06,300/- as calculated and approved by LIC of India on account of paid up value and bonus accrued in the policy No.300146173 already stand paid on 21.08.2013. On merits, JDs have reiterated all the averments as alleged in the preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of the execution application.

3.                Both the parties attached their respective documents in order to support their rival contentions.

4.                From the perusal of the execution application and reply, the point of determination arose as to whether the decree holder/complainant was held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- as paid up value and bonus accrued to the policy No.300146173 or a sum of Rs.1,06,300/-.

5.                Counsel for the decree holder/complainant has contended that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to review its previous order as the provisions of the old Act are applicable. He has drawn attention towards the case laws titled as Suncity Residents Welfare Association (SRWA) versus M/s Suncity Maintenance Pvt. Ltd and others-2014(4)CLT-65(N.C.), M.P.Housing Board versus Jagdish Prasad Maheshwari-2010(2)CPC-451(N.C.) and B.Srinivasa Rao versus Tafe Access Limited and another-IV(2011)CPJ-666(N.C.) and it has been contended that under the old Act, the Hon’ble National Commission has the power to review its order. Now the power to review has been conferred to the District Commission as well. This Commission is in respectful agreement with regard to bare provisions of both old and new Act.

6.                Now the present controversy can be seen from the other angle. It is well settled law that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and it must take the decree at its original stand and execute according to its terms. But when the terms of a decree are vague or ambiguous, an executing court can construe the decree to ascertain its precise meaning. For this purpose, the executing court may refer not only to the judgment, but also the pleadings of the case. In this regard, a reference can be made to the law laid down in case titled as Topanmal Chhotamal vs.Kundomal Gangaram-AIR 1960 SC 388. By applying the ratio of this judgment, this Commission has also perused the main file of complaint No.752 of 11.09.2012 attached with the execution application. The registration of the present complaint dates back on 11.09.2012 and the written statement was also filed by the OPs on 10.12.2012 where there has been a specific reference in different paras of the written version that claim for the paid up value of the policy i.e.Rs.62,500/- and vested bonus of Rs.43,800/- was entertained and a total sum of Rs.1,06,300/- has been paid towards the payment of net claim amount under the policy. Cheque No.267778 was sent and letter dated 01.10.2023 was sent to the complainant. The complainant did not choose to file rejoinder to this material fact. However, Learned Predecessor of this Commission has referred to the fact of settlement of claim to the tune of Rs.1,06,300/- in the paras of the order dated 26.06.2012 as well but somehow in the operative part of the said order, due to some near similarity in digits, an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- has been typed instead of Rs.1,06,300/-.

7.                Perusal of the record also shows that JDs had been offering the payment of Rs.1,06,300/- to the decree holder since the institution of the complaint and cheques which were tendered and were revalidated and lastly the payment of Rs.1,06,300/- was received by the decree holder on 26.10.2017. This fact has also been admitted by the counsel for the decree holder during the course of arguments. Now the dispute remains to the fact only that Rs.8000/- which was compositely assessed in the award has been paid by the JDs to the decree holder within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order or not. No document has been placed on record qua said fact by the JDs. So, JDs have partly complied with the order under execution and the remaining part of the order qua payment of compensation yet to be complied with by the JDs. Since it was the specific direction passed in the order dated 26.06.2013 that if the OPs failed to comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, they will be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

8.                In the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M.Chinnamuthu(Dead) versus Kamaleshan @Shanmugam (Dead) through legal heirs-2022 LiveLaw(SC)209 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).2198/22 decided on 18.02.2022, it has been observed that in a civil litigation, the judgment-creditor is entitled to enjoy the fruit of the litigation within a reasonable time. In our justice delivery system, the real litigation starts only after the decree is passed and the judgment-creditor has to wait for number of years for enjoying the fruit of the decree and the litigation. If such a delayed tactics is permitted, the litigant would lose the confidence in the justice delivery system. Every litigation has to put to an end at a particular time.”

9.                In view of the above, it will be in the fitness of things that if the JDs are directed to pay Rs.8000/-(Eight thousand only) to the decree holder along with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 11.09.2012 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As such, the present execution application stands disposed accordingly. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. Copy of this order be also placed in the Miscellaneous application No.21 of 03.12.2021. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)             (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.02.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma