DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> E.A.No.22 of 21.5.2008 Decided on : 21.7.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.Gurjant Singh S/o Santa Singh R/o Village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> 2.Manpreet Singh S/o Sh. Gurjant Singh, R/o Village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil & District Bathinda. .. Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Managing Director, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 24 Whites Road, Chennai-600014.<br /> 2.Mr. Balwinder Singh, The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. Navneet Kumar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties: Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This order disposes of the complaint which has been preferred by the complainants under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to punish them under this section; pay Rs.3,69,900/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 29.7.2004 till payment; Rs.1,000/- as costs; Rs.66,600/- as parking and repair charges of the Tractor and Rs. 5,500/- as cost of forced litigation.<br /> 2. Consumer Complaint No. 124 dated 9.5.2005 titled as Gurjant and Manpreet Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Was decided by this Forum on 23.8.2005. Complaint was partly allowed with costs of RS.1,000/-. Parties were directed to do as under :-<br /> (i) Complainants would deliver the salvage of the Tractor to opposite party No. 2 within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order and opposite party No. 2 would take possession of it.<br /> (ii) Complainants would also execute Letter of Subrogation as per requirements of the opposite parties in their favour conferring all the rights in the Tractor including Ownership with opposite parties i.e. Insurance Company through opposite party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> (iii) After the complainants deliver salvage and executive Letter of Subrogation as mentioned above, opposite parties would pay Rs.3,69,900/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 29.7.2004 till payment within one month.<br /> 3. Complainants allege that opposite party No. 2 was contacted in his office and request was made to give format of the Letter of Subrogation and take possession of salvage of the Tractor. Matter was delayed on the pretext that copy of the order of the Forum was not received. Thereafter, they (complainants) issued letter dated 19.9.2005 through their counsel. In response to it, opposite parties had sent letter asking them to give Forms No. 29 and 30, Letter of Subrogation and Form No. 35 signed by State Bank of Patiala, Mehma Sarja. Further direction was given that salvage of the Tractor in bound condition be delivered at Bathinda. They (complainants) had issued letter dated 7.10.2005 through their counsel with which Form No. 29, 30 and letter of Subrogation were sent. Inability was shown to get the Tractor bound. It was further made clear that State Bank of Patiala would deliver Form No. 35 after they (opposite parties) would deliver the cheque of the amount covered by the order of the Forum. Appeal preferred against the order by the insurance company was dismissed by the Hon'ble State Commission. They (complainants) had sent legal notice dated 10.3.2006 for getting the amount, but to no effect. After that they had received letter from Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh R/o village Maur, District Muktsar successor of M/s. Muhar Auto Mobiles, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura for payment of Rs. 37,800/- as cost of parking the unassembled Tractor and repair charges for opening the Tractor. It is alleged by the complainants that these expenses had accrued due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. Notice dated 24.3.2006 was issued to the opposite parties for making the payment of Rs. 37,800/-, but in vain. Efforts were made by them to convince Mr. Jaswinder Singh for getting the salvage of the Tractor and State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mehma Sarja for getting Form No. 35. Bank gave Form No. 35. Jaswinder Singh also agreed to deliver the salvage before getting his dues of Rs. 66,600/-. They have sent Form No. 35 and gave offer to the opposite parties for delivering salvage of the Tractor through letter dated 7.11.2006 issued by their counsel. There was no response from the opposite parties. Thereafter, they deposited the salvage of the Tractor on 13.3.2008 and 8.4.2008. Despite this, opposite parties have not paid the amount as per order of this Forum. They got issued legal notice dated 29.4.2008 through their counsel asking the opposite parties to pay the amount. Opposite party No. 2 sent its reply, but payment has not been made. Details of the amount which they claim are as under :-<br /> (i) Claim awarded : Rs.3,69,900/-<br /> (ii) Interest @ 9% P.A (from : Rs.1,24,841/-<br /> 29.7.2004 to 28.4.2008) <br /> (iii) Cost awarded : Rs. 1,000/-<br /> (iv) Expenses of storage of : Rs. 66,600/-<br /> tractor & repair of opening <br /> of tractor.<br /> (v) Execution expenses/cost : Rs. 5,500/-<br /> (vi) Future interest @ 9% P.A<br /> 4. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainants have not complied with the order dated 23.8.2005 of this Forum as they could not deposit the salvage within 15 days. It has been deposited on 13.3.2008 and 8.4.2008; even if this Forum comes to the conclusion that they are liable to pay any interest on the awarded amount, they are liable to pay it after the expiry of one month of the deposit of salvage; an application was moved by the Company before this Forum which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No.33 of 29.9.2005 which was dismissed on 29.9.2005; complainants are estopped from filing this complaint by their act and conduct; even earlier they had filed complaints under section 25 of the Act which have been dismissed on 15.12.2005, 27.10.2006 and 18.3.2008; this complaint under section 27 of the Act is pre-mature; as per provisions of the law, complainants have to exhaust their remedy under section 25 of the Act before adopting the coercive method/remedy under section 27 of the Act; they had written letters/reminders dated 3.10.2005 and 10.10.2005 to the complainants to deposit the salvage but they failed to deposit it within the time allowed by this Forum; complaint/application is not within time; alongwith reply of the complaint, cheque for Rs.4,15,379/- was offered which was accepted by the learned counsel for the complainants under protest on the ground that amount is short. They allege that complainants cannot take benefit of their own wrong. <br /> 5. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence their affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2), photocopies of orders dated 23.8.2005 and 31.1.2006 (Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.5), photocopies of legal notices dated 10.3.2006, 24.3.2006, 22.3.2006, 7.11.2006 and 29.4.2008 (Ex.C.4, Ex.C.6, Ex.C.7, Ex.C.9 & Ex.C.16) respectively, photocopy of U.P.C (Ex.C.8), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.10 & ExC.17), photocopies of letters dated 3.11.2007 & 29.4.2008(Ex.C.11 & Ex.C.18), photocopy of Form no. 35 (Ex.C.12), photocopies of receipts dated 13.3.2008 & 8.4.2008 (Ex.C.13 & Ex.C.15)and photocopy of report of Surveyor (Ex.C.14).<br /> 6. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager, photocopy of cheque dated 13.6.2008 (Ex.R.2), photocopies of letters dated 21.9.2005, 3.10.2005,9.4.2008, 28.4.2008, 2.5.2008, 12.4.2001, 9.4.2001 & 10.10.2005 (Ex.R.3 to R.9 & R.21) respectively; photocopies of three pages of revised financial powers (Ex.R.10), photocopies of Forms No. 29, 30 Part-2 & Part-1 and 35 (Ex.R.11 to Ex.R.14) respectively; photocopy of affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager (Ex.R.15), photocopies of replies of notices dated 13.12.2007 and 31.3.2006 (Ex.R.16 & Ex.R.18), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.R.17 & Ex.R.19), photocopy of reply dated 11.10.2006 (Ex.R.20), photocopy of application (Ex.R.22) and photocopies of orders (Ex.R.23 to Ex.R.25) respectively.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Navneet Kumar learned counsel for the complainants are that complainants have complied with all the formalities as per order passed by this Forum. They have also deposited the salvage of the Tractor. All the requisite documents have been supplied to the opposite parties. Despite this, opposite parties have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the order of this Forum dated 23.8.2005. Accordingly, they are liable to be punished under section 27 of the Act. Further direction deserves to be given to them to pay Rs.1,58,721/- alongwith future interest @ 9% P.A after adjustment of Rs. 4,15,379/- already paid by them. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex. C.2 of complainant Manpreet Singh and Gurjant Singh respectively, documents Ex.C.4, Ex.C.9, Ex.C.11 to Ex.C.14 and Ex.C.16. He further argued that order is not conditional and they are liable to pay interest from 29.7.2004 till the date of payment.<br /> 9. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainants by submitting that complainants could not deposit the salvage within the prescribed time of 15 days. They have deposited it only on 13.3.2008 and 8.4.2008. Due amount has already been paid to them on 13.6.2008. Complainants are taking advantage of their own wrong. They are estopped from filing this complaint.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments. Effective part of the order passed by this Forum on 23.8.2005, copy of which is Ex.C.3, has been reproduced above. Para No. 17 (iii) of the order is very material. This Forum by way of keeping all the pros and cones in view has used words, “after the complainants deliver salvage and execute Letter of Subrogation as mentioned above” in the order. From these words, there remains no doubt about the payment of the interest by the opposite parties on the amount of Rs.3,69,900/- from 29.7.2004 till 23.8.2005 i.e. till the date of passing the order. It means that interest on this amount was certainly payable till then. The dispute is regarding the payment of the interest on this amount after 23.8.2005. Copy of the order was received by the complainants on 5.9.2005. They were required to deliver the salvage of the Tractor to opposite party No. 2 and to execute Letter of Subrogation as per requirements of the opposite parties in their favour conferring all the rights in the Tractor including ownership through opposite party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. There was an appeal against the order of this Forum before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab which was registered as First Appeal No. 1342 of 2005, decided on 31.1.2006 and copy of the order in that appeal is Ex.C.5. As per order of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, direction was given that complainants should comply with the order which is required to be complied with on their part so that appellants(opposite parties) may be able to comply with the part of the order of the District Forum. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that complainants were ready and willing to deliver the salvage and to give Form No. 35 after receiving the same from the Bank, but under compelled circumstances, it could not be done as the Tractor was with the workshop and charges were being demanded from the complainants and Bank was not issuing cancellation of lien without the payment of loan amount. Sh. Jaswinder Singh had also issued notice to Manpreet Singh complainant that a sum of Rs. 37,800/- concerning the parking charges of the Tractor was due. It is only on 7.11.2007 complainants sent Form No. 35, cancellation of bank lien on the Tractor and photographes of the unassembled Tractor as is clear from the copy of the letter Ex.C.9. Bank sent letter to the Registering Authority, copy of which is Ex.C.12, that the Hire Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation has come to an end. Admittedly salvage of the Tractor was given by the complainants to the opposite parties in parts. Some was given on 13.3.2008 as is obvious from Ex.C.13 & Ex.C.14 and the remainder on 8.4.2008 vide receipt Ex.C.15. Opposite parties also wrote letters to the complainants for compliance of the order, copies of which are Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4. Complainants sent notice to the opposite parties on 29.4.2008. On the same day, opposite party No. 2 sent reply, copy of which is Ex.C.18, intimating that matter was being referred to the higher authorities as the compliance of the order exceeds his authority. A perusal of the documents Ex.R.9 and Ex.R.10 also reveals that opposite party No. 2 is not competent to sanction the amount which was allowed under the Award. Opposite party No. 2 initiated the action for the payment of the amount and sought legal opinion as well as is clear form Ex.R.5 and Ex.R.7. Ultimately, amount of Rs. 4,15,379/- was paid on 13.6.2008. No malafide can be attributed to the opposite parties, particularly when complainants made complete compliance of the order on 8.4.2008 and despite this, opposite parties have paid interest on Rs.3,69,900/- from 13.3.2008 till the date of payment i.e. 13.6.2008. Word After in para No. 17(iii) of the order indicates that complainants were to make the compliance for receiving the interest. Since, they did not make complete compliance of the order till 8.4.2008, they cannot claim interest for the intervening period i.e. from 24.8.2005 onwards till the date of complete compliance of the order. In case, order is interpreted in the line of the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants, opposite parties become liable to pay interest for an indefinite period even if complainants do not perform their part of the liability which was shouldered upon them. This approach which the complainants intend that this Forum should adopt, does not appeal to logic at all. Complainants in their affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 claim Rs. 66,600/- from the opposite parties as expenses of parking of the Tractor and charges of opening it. By no stretch of imagination, complainants can claim this amount, particularly when this amount is out of the scope of the order passed by this Forum on 23.8.2005.<br /> 11. In view of our forgoing discussion, conclusion is that opposite parties have paid the due amount without any inordinate delay and that too, with interest from 13.3.2008 although complete compliance regarding the deposit of the salvage of the Tractor was made by the complainants on 8.4.2008. In these circumstances, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Forum. Accordingly, this complaint under section 27 of the Act is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 21.7.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />