DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

EA No. 62 of 19-09-2012

Decided on : 11-01-2013

Kamlesh Rani W/o Jagdish Chand R/o St. No. 10/5, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda.

.... Complainant/Applicant

Versus

1. Vineet Solanki, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 now Manager at Reliance General Insurance Col Ltd., Ist Fooor, Plot No. 2, DLF Building, Tower F, IT Park, Chandigarh.

2. Sat Pal Dhamija, Authorized Signatory, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, C/o Magma Leasing Limited, 1^st Floor, Above City Centre, Near Tinkoni, G.T. Road, Bathinda, Now SCO No. 145 & 146, 2^nd floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160 009.

... Opposite parties/Respondents

Complaint under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the applicant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.

For the respondents : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. Smt. Kamlesh Rani omplainant/applicant has filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') seeking an order of punishment on the ground that opposite parties/respondents have not complied with the order dated 19-05-2008 of this Forum.

2. This Forum passed an order on 19-05-2008 under Section 12 of the 'Act' in complaint No. 1 dated 01-01-2009. The effective part of the order reads as under :-

3. “In the result, complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 with costs of Rs. 1500/-. The opposite parties are directed to do as under :-

   (i)Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay interest amount of the complainant on Rs. 1,81,601/- @ 9% P.A. from 21-08-2007 to 21-01-2008 to opposite party No. 3.

2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay balance claim amount of the complainant i.e. Rs. 52,101/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 22-01-2008 till payment to opposite party No. 3.

3. In case, the amount as referred to above is paid by opposite parties No. 1 & 2, opposite party No. 3 would adjust it in the loan account of the complainant. In case any amount out of the amount received by it is found excess, it would remit the same to the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt failing which it would be liable to pay interest on this remaining amount @ 9% P.A. till payment.

The complainant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh which was decided on 27-04-2012 and the Hon'ble State Commission, enchanced the cost from Rs. 1500/- and also awarded the costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the appeal.”

3. The learned counsel for the parties were directed to file calculation of the amount paid/to be paid to the applicant/complainant and as per direction of this Forum, the parties produced calculation of the amount paid/to be paid to the complainant. A perusal of calculation sheet dated 17-12-2012 produced by the opposite parties reveals that an amount of Rs. 77/- has been paid in excess to the complainant whereas the calculation sheet produced by the learned counsel for the complainant showed an amount of Rs. 77/- due to the complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the opposite parties made the payment of Rs. 13,500/- vide cheque No. 254404 dated 23-10-2012 during the pendency of this application and the complainant spent about Rs. 10,000/- to file this application.

5. After going through the aforesaid order passed by this Forum under Section 12 of the Act and and the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, in appeal filed by the complainant, and the calculations of amount produced by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs. 77/- is still due from the opposite parties. A perusal of file reveals that an amount Rs. 13,500/- has been paid by the opposite parties to the complainant vide cheque No. 254404 dated 23-10-2012 cleared on 31-10-2012 i.e. during the pendency of this application. The provisions contained under Section 27 of the “Act” is an exceptional provision made in the Statute in a nature of extra ordinary remedy provided to the consumers for ensuring the compliance of the order passed by the Fora, i.e. is to say for compliance of the claims of civil nature, the stignant and harsh remedy is provided in the Statute itself for its object of ensuring the claims of the consumers are satisfied without any difficulties. One cannot say and it would also not be proper that such an extra-ordinary remedy provided under the Statute is allowed to be used as an instrument or weapon for taking vengeance. In this regard, the support may be sought from Mr. Surindera D. Hatkar Prop. R.S. Hatkar & Associates Vs. Mr. John Robert 2003(1) CPR 395 at pages 396-397 (St. Com) (DB). The precedent laid down is reproduced here under :

   “Therefore, the remedy as made available under Section 27 has to be used with circumspect and caution, bearing in mind that invocation thereof visits with impairing the liberties of the citizens, which is previous fundamental right under the Constitution. Held, the appellant should be given opportunity for the compliance of order instead of allowing him to languish in the Jail, particularly when there is an offer made for payment of Rs. 50,000/- immediately and an assurance is given for the payment of balance amount under the award.” Hence, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 77/- alongwith cost of this litigation.

4. In view of what has been discussed above, this Execution Application is accepted with cost of Rs. 500/-. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 77/- to the complainant.

   The compliance of this order be made within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced :

11-01-2013 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member