Punjab

Ludhiana

MA/14/14

Harish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

DR Rampal adv

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                      Misc. application No:14 dated 28.01.2014.                                               Date of order: 27.02.2023.

 

Harish Kumar Mahindra son of Shri Madan Lal, Prop. M/s. Haute Processor, House No.4189/1, Street No.6-1/2, Beantpura, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office No.3, Link Road, near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana and Divisional Office No.4, Kesar Ganj, Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager Shri R.L. Sharma.                                                                                                                                             …..Applicant/OP 

Application for directing the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- received in excess by him.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For applicant/opposite party  :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate.

For complainant                      :         None.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                This order shall dispose of the application filed by the opposite party for directing the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- received in excess by him. It was mentioned that the complaint No.545 dated 04.07.2021 was decided by this Commission vide order dated 20.12.2012 directing the opposite party to settle and pay the claim as per report of surveyor Ex. R5 and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, failing which OP is liable to pay interest @9% P.A. from the date of lodging the claim till its realization and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant. The opposite party stated that it received the copy of order on 08.01.2013 and after going out the terms and conditions of insurance policy as well as survey report, worked out the payable amount as Rs.14,12,756/- including compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5000/-, in all Rs.14,27,756/- and prepared a cheque of Rs.14,27,756/- dated 06.02.2013 with this Commission. The applicant stated that it preferred FAO No.281 dated 12.03.2013 before the Hon’ble State Commission and at the time of filing the appeal, the company deposited Rs.25,000/-. Said appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 13.11.2013 directing the applicant to pay Rs.14,12,756/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor vide survey report Ex. R5 and the Hon’ble State Commission also held that the applicant is liable to pay the costs and interest as awarded by the Hon’ble Commission. However, the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order of paying compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further ordered to remit the  amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the applicant which was remitted to the complainant by the Hon’ble State Commission. The applicant further stated that he has already deposited the amount of Rs.14,27,756/- with this Commission vide receipt dated 06.02.2013 and said amount was ordered to be released to the complainant vide order dated 23.12.2013. The applicant further stated that the complainant is liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited in excess and Rs.25,000/- deposited by applicant with the Hon’ble State Commission at the time of filing the appeal in a the complainant is required to refund/return the amount of Rs.35,000/- to the applicant. 

2.                Upon notice, the complainant appeared and filed reply by taking preliminary objections that as per the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission the appeal was only heard with regard to the compensation of Rs.10,000/- with further directions to the registry of the State Commission to remit the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with interest thereon. The complainant further alleged that as per the orders of Hon’ble State Commission the insurance company shall pay interest as well as costs awarded by the District Commission and the interest amount @9% per annum comes to Rs.2,16,792/- which the insurance company has not paid till date. Moreover, the amount of Rs.25,000/- also not granted/remitted to the complainant.

                   On merits, the complainant admitted that the amount was released by this Commission after going through the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission. The complainant further submitted that the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the insurance company in appeal was awarded by the Hon’ble State Commission to the complainant with directions to the Registry to remit the said amount to the complainant. The complainant stated that he is liable to interest on the decreetal amount deposited by the insurance company which they have not paid till date. The complainant also submitted the calculation sheet by demanding balance amount of Rs.2,16,792/- from the insurance company. The complainant sought dismissal of the application with prayer that the insurance company be directed to pay interest @9% till the realization as per the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission.   

3.                Initially, the complainant Harish Kumar appeared in person but alter on absented himself from the proceedings and none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 11.01.2016.  We have heard the counsel for applicant/opposite party.

4.                By way of the present application, the applicant has sought refund of Rs.35,000/- received in excess by the complainant. We have gone through the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the predecessor of this Commission in complaint No.545 dated 04.07.2012, operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

“13. In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and as a result, direct the OP to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per the report of the surveyor Ex. R5 and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, failing which, OP is liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of lodging of claim till its realization and further, OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Against the said order, the insurance company preferred FAO No.281 of 2013 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab which was partly allowed vide order dated 13.11.2013, operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

“20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order under appeal dated 20.12.2012 is modified and the appellant is directed to pay Rs.14,12,756/- to the respondent as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex. R5. The appellant shall also pay interest as well as costs awarded by the District Forum. However, the order of the District Forum, directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, is set aside and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

21.     The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.    

22.     Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.”

5.                As per office report dated 19.02.2014, the amount of Rs.14,27,756/- was deposited by the opposite party which was refunded to the complainant vide order dated 23.12.2013. Further as per office report dated 27.02.2023 no amount has been received from the Hon’ble State Commission in this case.

6.                Now it has be seen whether the opposite party/applicant is entitled for refund of Rs.35,000/- as prayed in this application.

7.                From the perusal of order of this Commission dated 20.12.2012 and the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission dated 13.11.2013 it appears that the applicant/opposite party has duly complied with the order passed by this Commission by depositing Rs.14,27,756/- on 06.02.2013 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order on 08.11.2013. The said amount of Rs.14,27,756/- includes the amount of Rs.14,12,756/- assessed by the surveyor as per survey report Ex. R5 + Rs.10,000/- as compensation + Rs.5000/- as litigation costs. The said amount was disbursed to the complainant.

8.                Further perusal of order of the Hon’ble State Commission dated 13.11.2013, it appears that the Hon’ble State Commission partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also to remit the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the opposite party to the complainant which as per complainant he has not received the same till date and further as per office report no amount has been received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

9.                After going through the contents of the above said orders passed by this Commission and by the Hon’ble State Commission, the pleadings of the parties and office reports, the opposite party/applicant has duly complied with the directions passed in the above said orders by depositing Rs.14,27,756/- which was further disbursed to the complainant. In this manner, the complainant has received Rs.10,000/- in excess under the head of compensation. However, regarding remittance of the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, the parties have not produced any proof on the record.

10.              The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the applicant/opposite party at the time of filing appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and the said amount was ordered to be remitted to the complainant vide order dated 13.11.2013 of the Hon’ble State Commission. As per the version of the complainant, he has not received Rs.25,000/- from the Hon’ble State Commission. So the said amount must have been lying with the Registry of the Hon’ble State Commission and the applicant/opposite party may approach the Registry of the Hon’ble State Commission for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.25,000/-. In case, it is revealed that the complainant had already received the said amount, then the complainant will also be liable to refund the said amount to the opposite party. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- to the applicant/opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment.  

11.              As a result of above discussion, the misc. application for directing the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- received in excess by him stands disposed off with direction to the complainant to refund Rs.10,000/- to the applicant/opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. Further for refund of remaining amount of Rs.25,000/-, the applicant/opposite party may approach the Registry of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and in case, it is revealed that the complainant had already received the said amount, then the complainant will also be liable to refund the said amount to the opposite party. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Harish Kumar Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.                       MA/14/14

Present:       Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate for applicant/JD.

                   None for the complainant.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been putting in appearance on behalf of complainant Harish Kumar since 11.01.2016.

                   Heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the misc. application for directing the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- received in excess by him stands disposed off with direction to the complainant to refund Rs.10,000/- to the applicant/opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. Further for refund of remaining amount of Rs.25,000/-, the applicant/opposite party may approach the Registry of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and in case, it is revealed that the complainant had already received the said amount, then the complainant will also be liable to refund the said amount to the opposite party. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.