Punjab

StateCommission

EA/23/2013

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.G.L. Charitable Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Saini

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   Execution Application 23 of 2013

                   In C.C No.11 of 2007

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 30.10.2013      

                                                          Date of Decision : 05.08.2015

 

Jaswinder Singh S/o Charan Singh, Village Bodal Kotlay, Post Office Nangal Khunga, District Hoshiarpur.

 

                                                                                                                                                                    …..Decree Holder/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.       S.G.L. Charitable Hospital managed by Baba Kshmira Singh, Jan   Sewa Trust, Garah Road-Jalandhar through its Chairman                       Baba   Kashmira Singh.

2.       Dr. Hardial Singh Ghuman, S.G.L. Charitable Hospital, Garah Road  Jalandhar now at 76-Gurjaipal Nagar, Garha Road, near                    Cool  Road, Jalandhar City.

3.       Dr. Balbir Singh S.G.L Charitable Hospital, Garah Road Jalandhar

4.       Dr. Harprit Singh, S.G.L Charitable Hospital Garah Road,   Jalandhar.

5.       Oriental Insurance Company , Branch Office, Opposite Nehru    Garden, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                    ..Judgment Debtors/Opposite parties.

 

Execution Application under Section 25 read with Section 27 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the Decree Holder               : Sh.G.K.Saini, Advocate  

          For the JD No.1                        : None

          For the JD No.2 & 3                  : Sh.Surinder Sharma, Advocate

          For the JD No.4                        : Dismissed vide order dt. 15.1.15

          For the JD No.5                        : Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate.

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The Decree Holder Jaswinder Singh has instituted the instant execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the JDs, on the allegations that complaint filed by the DH/Complainant was allowed by our State Commission on 27.09.2011. The State Commission ordered JD No.2/OP No.2 to pay Rs.5 lacs, whereas, JD no.3 and 4/OP No.3 and 4 were ordered to pay Rs.1 lac to the complainant/DH within a period of 60 days from receipt of copy of this order. JD No.2/OP No.2 was insured with JD No.5/OP No.5 during the above above-referred period under 'Professional Indemnity Policy.' No appeal was preferred against the order of this Commission before National Commission New Delhi. The JDs/OPs have not filed any appeal against the order dated 27.09.2011 and the same attained the finality. The OPs have not complied with the order dated 27.09.2011 and, hence, instant execution application has been filed by DH/Complainant. DH/Complainant has prayed that order passed by this Commission dated 27.09.2011 be executed in the letter and spirit and DH/complainant further prayed for interest @ 9% per annum till actual payment. DH has further prayed that JDs be punished, as provided under the Act, besides cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-

2.      Upon notice, of this execution application, JDs have not filed any reply to execution application.

3.      We have heard counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. DH/Complainant has prayed in execution application that JDs/OPs be directed to execute the order dated 27.09.2011 and to pay interest @ 9% per month till actual payment, besides Rs.10,000/-, as costs of litigation.

4.      The submission of counsel for JDs/OPs before us is that no such order for payment of the interest has been passed by the State Commission in this case and, hence, DH is not entitled to any such interest in Complaint No.11 of 2007, since it was not granted by the State Commission between the parties. From copy of the order of our Commission, it is evident that Dr. Hardial Singh/Jd No.2 was directed to pay Rs. 5 lac, as compensation to complainant and Dr.Balbir Singh and Dr. Harprit Singh/JD No.3 and 4 were directed to pay Rs.1 lac each, as compensation to complainant in lumpsum. The liability of Dr. Hardial Singh/JD No.2  and Oriental Insurance Company/JD No.5  to pay the amount of Rs. 5 lac was fixed jointly and severally. Compliance of the order was to be made within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

5.      From perusal of the order of the Commission dated 27.09.2011, we find that the Commission has not passed any such order for payment of interest to the DH/Complainant. No such order was passed by the Commission that in case JDs failed to make the payment or to comply with the order within prescribed period of time, the complainant now DH/Complainant would be entitled to interest under default clause thereof. The order of the State Commission dated 27.09.2011, whereupon instant execution is founded is silent on this point. The law is settled that Executing Forum cannot go beyond the terms of the order. It has to implement the order as it is without any addition or subtraction on its part. SH.G.K. Saini, counsel for DH/Complainant suffered a statement on 18.03.2015 in this execution application that he has received DD No.53024 for payment of Rs.1 lac dated 4.3.2015 in favour of Jaswinder Singh complainant/DH from counsel for JD No.3. The amount of Rs.4,95,000/- has been received by means of demand draft, vide receipt no.644812 and Rs.5000/- by means of draft, vide receipt dated 782878 in this Commission, as recorded in the report of the office in the endorsement to this effect.  The only point now in dispute between the parties pertains to the interest part. We are unable to agree with the submission of the counsel for the DH/complainant  that DH is entitled to receive interest for delayed payment. No order as to interest was passed by the Commission on 27.09.2011 nor it was ordered that in case the JDs failed to comply with the order, then the DH/Complainant would be entitled to recover interest under default clause therefor.  The amount of Rs.5 lac has been deposited with this Commission and DH/Complainant has received the amount of Rs.1 lac, vide DD No.530234 dated 4.3.2015. Counsel for JD No.4 handed over the Demand Draft No.UKZ 145135 for payment of Rs.1,39,250/- to DH. In the circumstances of the case. We cannot go beyond the directions of the order of Commission dated 27.09.2011, by which no such interest was granted to the present DH/Complainant. Consequently, we find that execution application stands fully satisfied and same is ordered to be dismissed.

6.      The JD No.5 has deposited Rs.4,95,000/-, vide receipt dated 17.10.2014 and Rs.5000/-, vide receipt dated 05.03.2015 with this Commission, at the time of filing of the execution application. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the DH/Complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, in case it has not been released earlier.

7.      As per order dated 15.1.2015 of this Commission, counsel for JD No.4/OP No.4 handed over the DD No.UKZ145135 for Rs.1,39,250/- in favour of the DH/Complainant. However, as per the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Commission in the complaint, JD No.4/OP No.4 was directed to pay Rs 1 lac only to the DH/Complainant. As such, the complainant/DH has received Rs.39,250/- in excess from JD No.4/OP No.4 and the DH/Complainant is liable to receive the reduced amount of Rs.39,250/- out of the above-referred amount and the amount of Rs.39,250/- along with interest, if accrued thereupon be refunded to JD from whom it has been received in excess by DH/Complainant after 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

8.      Arguments in this execution application were heard on 29.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.

9.      The execution application could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 5,  2015.                                                            

(ravi)