View 20801 Cases Against United India Insurance
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. filed a consumer case on 18 Jan 2017 against MAHABIR SINGH in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is RP/105/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Mar 2017.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Revision Petition No.105 of 2016
Date of the Institution: 23.11.2016
Date of Decision: 18.01.2017
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney.
.….Petitioner
Versus
1. Mahabir Singh S/o Shrio Daya Nand, R/o Village Bhaini Surjan, Tehsil Meham,Distt. Rohtak, Now residing at vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.
2. M/s International Autotrac finance Ltd., Village Cheack Gujran, P.O. Piplanwala, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and having its Branch Office at Rohtak, Through its Branch Manager.
.….Respondents
CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present:- Mr.P.S.Saini, Advocate for the appellant.
O R D E R
R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
“4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that the State is entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation to be recovered by it under section 144 of the code. The authorities relief upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have no applicability to the facts of the present case. In Birendra Nath’s case (supra), it was held that where an order for the return of costs contains no direction for the payment of interest, no interest can be realized in execution of that order and, therefore, interest in restitution under section 144 of the Code cannot be allowed though ordinarily interest is a part of the normal relief given restitution. In the present case, there was no such specific direction for the payment of the interest on refund of compensation with interest the enhanced amount of compensation, but it was a natural consequence of the order passed by this Court when the award given by the District Judge was modified in appeal. Under Section 144 of the code, the parties are to be placed in the same position which they would have occupied but for such a decree or order and for that purpose, the court could make any orders for the payment of the interest, damages, compensation etc. which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree of order. Thus, the payment of interest is a part of the normal relief granted under section 144 of the Code, as held in Birendra Nath’s case (supra) also. The other judgement i.e. Land Acquisition Officer’s can has absolutely no relevance.
5. Apart from the above, the respondents have taken the benefit of the money which they have received from the State of Punjab as enhanced amount of compensation which they were not entitled to receive in view of the decree passed by this court in appeal. Thus, having taken the benefit of amount, the same must be returned to the appellant with interest, as claimed.”
7. In view of above discussion revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 24.10.2016 is set aside.
8. The petitioner is directed to appear before Learned District forum, Bhiwani on 02.02.2017 for further proceedings.
January 18th, 2017 | Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench |
| R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench |
S.K.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.