MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This appeal  is directed  against the order dated 4.2.2011,   rendered by  the  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only ),vide which the  OP Insurance Company (now appellant) was directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of passing the order dated 20.4.2009 till the payment was made.  

2.         The complainant (now respondent) had filed a Consumer Complaint No.1084  of 2008 against the OP, National Insurance Company, (now appellant), stating therein that  his car i.e. Maruti Esteem bearing No.CH-03-N-6521 duly insured with it (OP), met with an accident on 13.12.2007 near IT Park, Chandigarh and was badly damaged.  The car was taken to the authorized dealer of Maruti i.e. OP No.3, which intimated the Insurance Company and Mr.Gulzar Singh was deputed as a Surveyor, who examined the same.  It was further stated that OP No.3 agreed to repair the vehicle, on the basis of the insurance policy and assured that the complainant need not make any payment, except the process fee as well as depreciation amount. After the repair of her car, the complainant was intimated that her claim was rejected by the Insurance Company, on the ground, that the car was having LPG kit installed in it.  It was further stated that in 2004, the vehicle was purchased and LPG Kit was installed in 2005. The complainant applied for permission for LPG Kit in the Registration Certificate and submitted all the necessary documents with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh in June, 2005. Subsequently, previous R.C. of the vehicle was amended and new R.C. was issued. The complainant was left with no alternative and with a view to escape the imposition of penality, on her regarding the parking charges, paid the total repair charges of Rs.1,32,500/- to OP No.3 and took the delivery of car.  Thereafter the complainant visited the OP Insurance Company many times to get the said claim, but all in vain.  It was further stated that in May, 2007 this very vehicle was involved in an accident under the same insurance policy and the estimate of repairs was intimated to the tune of Rs.3.30 lacs, out of which, the complainant was paid only Rs.44,000/- as process fee & deprecation amount. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, she filed the aforesaid complaint.

3.         The District Forum allowed the complaint, vide order dated 20.4.2009,  in the following manner ;

“In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay the aforementioned amount of       Rs.1,07,255.49 Ps. plus Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- i.e. total Rs.1,57,255/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum since 5.3.2008 (30 days after the date of report Annexure OP-3 of Surveyor) till the payment is actually made to the complainant. 

The OPs are free to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- from its employees due to whose fault the claim was delayed, of course after adopting proper procedure by giving such official(s) an opportunity of being heard.” 

4.         The appellant, National Insurance Company, preferred an appeal bearing No.272 of 2009 before this Commission, against the aforesaid order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the learned District Forum. This Commission admitted the appeal vide order dated 6.7.2009 and passed an interim order to the following effect :-

“Heard. Admitted. Let notice be issued to the respondent(s) for 29.7.2009. The operation of the impugned order is stayed subject to payment of 50% of the total amount awarded by the learned District Forum within three weeks. Record of complaint case be also summoned from the District Forum concerned for the date fixed.”

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.79,655/- through bank draft No.573389 dated 15.7.2009 drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The appellant had also deposited Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal before this Commission. It was stated that after hearing both the sides, this Commission partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 11.5.2010 modification, in the impugned order, and directed the appellant i.e. National Insurance Company to make the following payments to the complainant ;

“1. to pay Rs.1,06,755.49 paise the cost of repair of the above said car as per surveyor’s report.  

2. to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental and physical harassment .

3. to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

4. to pay the above said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order,  failing which interest @ 12% p.a. will be charged from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 20.4.2009 till its realization.”

5.         After the receipt of certified copy of the order dated 11.5.2010, passed by this Commission, the appellant complied with the same by depositing the balance amount of Rs.32,100/- on 9.7.2010 through bank draft.  It was stated  that though the appellant fully complied with the order, within the stipulated period, the respondent filed an execution application before the learned District Forum on 16.8.2010, seeking payment of interest on the amount awarded by the Commission.

6.         Upon notice, the appellant through Counsel appeared and filed reply.

7.         The learned District Forum vide order dated 4.2.2011 directed the appellant to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the order dated 20.4.2009, till payment, to the respondent, on the ground that the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by this Commission was not complied with by the appellant within the stipulated period of 30 days.

8.            Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed.

9.         We have heard the  Counsel for the appellant, as well as the respondents No.1 and 3 , and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

10.       The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had deposited the entire amount, as directed by this Commission within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of the aforesaid order i.e. 11.5.2010 and as such, it could not be held liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on account of any delay in making the payment. It was further contended that it was for the respondent to withdraw the money lying deposited with this Commission, after the disposal of the appeal. It was further contended that the reasoning adopted by the learned District Forum that the respondent could not withdraw the money, as there was a stay order granted by this Commission, is wholly against the record, in as much as no stay was operating after the disposal of the appeal and there was no direction by this Commission to refund the amount to the appellant, which was lying deposited with it. In the absence of the said direction, the appellant could neither withdraw the said amount nor it was actually withdrawn. It was further contended that the lapse on the part of the respondent in not withdrawing the amount from this Commission could not result into penalizing the appellant. It was further submitted that the impugned order being set aside.

11.       The learned Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant contended that since the amount had not been paid to him till the date, as ordered by this Commission, therefore, the interest was due from the appellant/Insurance Company. Reliance was also placed on Sales and Agencies Vs. Plantation Corporation of Kerala, 1996 ISJ (Banking) 521.

12.       The learned Counsel for respondent No.3 contended that respondent No.3 (Berkely Automobiles Ltd.) was only the repairer and as such there was no fault on its part.

13.       It is an admitted case that the appellant deposited the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- while filing the appeal and also deposited Rs.79,655/- on 15.7.2009, on the directions of this Commission, while obtaining stay. It is also true that after receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Commission, the appellant had paid Rs.32,100/- to the complainant, through cheque dated 9.7.2010, i.e. within 30 days, after deducting the sum from the principal amount, which was lying deposited with this Commission. Thus, the short point for consideration before us, is whether the appellant made payment to the complainant, within the stipulated period.    According to us, the appellant did not make payment of the decretal amount, to the complainant. No doubt the amount was deposited by the appellant, in pursuance of the order passed by the Commission on 6.7.2009 vide which the impugned order was stayed. This amount was lying with the State Commission. There is no document to establish that the appellant had ever informed the complainant, to withdraw the amount, which was lying deposited with the Commission.  Neither the appellant notified the complainant to withdraw the amount, nor it filed an application before the State Commission for the release of the amount, deposited by him, to the complainant nor the Commission ordered that the amount deposited, in pursuance of the conditional order dated 6.7.2009 alongwith Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal, be paid to the complainant. Thus, the amount deposited by the appellant, in pursuance of the conditional order of stay passed by the Commission on 6.7.2009 and another statutory sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by it (appellant) at the time of filing the appeal, was not meant for payment to the complainant/respondent. Similar principle of law was laid down in Sales and Agencies’ case (supra). The complainant/respondent was, thus, rightly held entitled to pay penal interest @ 12% from the date of passing the order dated 20.4.2009, till the payment was made to the complainant/respondent. Therefore, we concur with the order passed by the learned District Forum.

14.       In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company/OP No.1 is dismissed, being devoid of merit and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld.

15.       The parties are directed to appear in the District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh on 21.9.2011 at 10.30 a.m. The file of the District Forum be sent at once.

16.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.

17.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

8^th September, 2011.