Today was fixed for proper orders for the judicious dispensation of the present execution application (# 26 of 2016) in the light of the 4 nos of different allegations of non-compliance by the JD respondents (as made out by the DH/ applicant here in the present application) of the Forum’s orders dated 18.07.2012 in the Consumer Complaint # 45 of 2012 as were duly up-held by the honorable State Commission’s orders dated 10.08.2016 in First Appeal # 1214 of 2012.

2.       We have consciously studied the above referred two nos of orders and have also intently heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law pertaining to the subject matter in issue.

3.       Presently, we prefer these allegations (as made out in the present application) to be taken up one each (separately) at one time for the purposes of separate but judicious adjudication:

Allegation i): (in the words of the applicant): The insurance company had further deposited an amount of Rs.788,746/- in the account of the applicant in violation of the above said order;

Finding i): The Forum’s orders directed the opposite party no. 1 & 2 “either to pay the sum assured of the vehicle to the complainant without any deductions and retain the salvage/ damaged vehicle ………within 30 days ……...liable to pay an interest @ 9% PA from the date of complaint”; In this way, the opposite parties deposited the IDV of the policy Rs.608,138/- plus the accrued interest in compliance with the orders in question and as such it defies the complainant’s allegation # i) i.e., violation of the Forum’s orders; the complainant has not contested the correctness of calculation of interest etc and instead has duly accepted the accrued interest as paid by the JD respondents.      

Allegation ii): (in the words of the applicant); The insurance Company in violation of the order dated 18.07.2012 had deducted an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the ordered amount on the pretext that they have deposited the same in the ld. State Commission, Punjab and Haryana. (Sic)

Finding ii): The honorable State Commission in paragraph 11 of its orders dated 10.08.2016 has categorically confirmed that the opposite parties had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal before the Commission and has further directed the Registry to remit the said amount along with interest to the complainant by way of a crossed cheque after the expiry of 45 days etc. Thus, the opposite parties are fully justified in deducting Rs.25,000/- from the award amount and as such no violation of orders did ever occur as alleged by the applicant in his present application.

Allegation iii): (in the words of the applicant): It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has been further burdened with Rs.34,999/- as rent which he had given to respondent no.4 (Pathankot Vehicleads Pvt. Ltd.), which was to be given by the insurance company.

Finding iii): We find that both the orders of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission are silent as to by whom the payment of rent to the respondent no. 4 is to be made and as such no question of any ‘violation’ of whatsoever arises nor the Forum in its present role of an ‘executing’ court is empowered with any correctional and/ or likewise jurisdiction of whatsoever vital necessity unto its minute triviality. Thus, no violation of orders has ever incurred, as alleged.

Allegation iv): (in the words of the applicant): The applicant had also given         Rs.4,000/- as transportation expenses qua the car in question which was also to be given by the National Insurance Co.

Finding iv): Even the present allegation like the allegation # iii) does not find any mention (of its resolve) in the said orders and as such any issue of its compliance shall not be of any ‘significance’ in determination of the alleged violation etc.

4.     Finally, we find that the DH applicant’s immature interpretation of the Forum’s orders is bereft of legal ‘logic’ and need be simply discarded. In the present execution ‘issue in question’ pertains to simple ‘interpretation’ of the ‘award’ and that shall surely go by the orders of the executing court with of course under the remedy of appeal U/s 27A of the Act.     

5.         In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present execution application is totally bereft of any statutory merit and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.

6.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. 

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                                     President.                                                                                        

ANNOUNCED:                                          (Jagdeep Kaur)

JUNE, 10, 2016                                                              Member.

*YP*