DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> E.A.No.07 of 12.02.2007<br /> Decided on : 17.04.2007 <br /> <br /> Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, R/o Ward No.5, Nai Basti, Goniana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> Gobind Aggarwal, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. Jai Gopal, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Consumer Complaint No.182 dated 14.7.2006 preferred by Kulwant Singh complainant against United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manger, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda and ICICI Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, The Mall, Bathinda through its Collection Manager was decided on 5.10.2006 against opposite party No.1 (United India Insurance Company<br /> <br /> Ltd.). Parties to the complaint were directed to do as under :-<br /> “( i ) Complainant would execute Letter of Subrogation as per requirements of opposite party No.1 in its favour conferring all the rights in the car including ownership with it i.e opposite party No.1-Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> ( ii ) After the complainant executes Letter of Subrogation as mentioned above, opposite party No.1 would pay Rs.3,74,000/- to opposite party No.2 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 27.5.2003 till payment, within month.<br /> ( iii ) Opposite party No.2 would adjust its outstanding amount towards the complainant from the above mentioned amount sent by opposite party No.1 and if any amount is found in excess, opposite party No.2 would pay the same to the complainant within ten days from the date of receipt thereof, failing which it would be liable to pay interest on the excess amount @ 9% P.A. till payment of the same to the complainant.<br /> ( iv ) In case, complainant does not execute Letter of Subrogation as per clause ( i ) within the period referred above in favour of opposite party No.1, he would not be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.3,74,000/- after 1-1/2 months after the receipt of copy of this order.”<br /> 2. Copies of the order were received by the complainant and opposite party No.1 on 17.10.2006.<br /> 3. On 12.2.2007 complaint/application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) was filed by the complainant against Gobind Aggarwal, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda for punishing him (opposite party No.1) in accordance with law for non-compliance of the order dated 5.10.2006. He asserts that he has already executed letter of subrogation as per requirement of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1, with malafide intention, is not complying with the order on one pretext or the other. There is willful disobedience of the order on its part. It is issuing vague letters to him in back dates saying that some formalities have not been completed, although he has already made more than ten visits to the office of opposite party No.1 and has completed the requisite formalities. Again opposite party No.1 instead of making the payment has issued another letter dated 19.01.2007, the reply of which has been sent by him. Act and conduct of opposite party No.1 has caused him mental tension and loss to his reputation. It is stressing to transfer the stolen vehicle in its favour knowing fully well that vehicle was/is under hypothecation with ICICI Bank and transfer can only be possible after removal of entry of hypothecation which can be removed only on clearance of the loan amount which is now payable by opposite party No.1 as per order of this Forum. He claims that he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 4. Sh. Gobind Aggarwal, Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda filed reply of the complaint/application under section 27 of the Act taking legal objections that application is not maintainable in the present form and at this stage as complainant himself has failed to submit the letter of subrogation as per requirement of the Insurance Company conferring all the rights in the car including ownership with it through him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 5.10.2006. It was his liability to get the registration of the car transferred in the name of the Insurance Company and thereafter, it was obligatory on its part to make payment. In response to the legal notice, letter was written to the complainant to get the registration/ownership of the car in the name of the Insurance Company transferred so that compensation may be paid. Complainant is estopped from filing the application by his act and conduct. Application/complaint has been filed to harass him. Complainant has failed to get the ownership transferred despite letters dated 27.12.2006, 19.01.2007 & 19.2.2007 issued to him. He denies that there is violation of the order of this Forum.<br /> 5. On 12.3.2007, Sh. Gobind Aggarwal, Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had moved an application for dismissal of the application under section 27 of the Act on the ground that complainant has failed to submit letter of subrogation with full particulars of the car in question within 15 days. Rather, he submitted wrong and incomplete letter of subrogation without number of the car. He further failed to submit Forms No. 35, 29, 30 ( i ) & ( ii ) and his affidavit for transfer of the car in question alongwith consent letter and No Objection Certificate from ICICI Bank in the name of the Insurance Company. Letters dated 27.12.2006, 19.01.2007 & 19.02.2007 were sent to the complainant with intimation to this Forum for doing the needful. Complainant instead of completing the formalities, has filed application under section 27 of the Act. He submitted the documents mentioned below on 6.3.2007:-<br /> ( a ) Letter of subrogation dated 6.3.2007<br /> ( b ) Consent letter dated 6.3.2007<br /> ( c ) Affidavit of complainant dated 6.3.2007<br /> ( d ) NOC of ICICI Bank dated 6.3.2007<br /> ( e ) Form No. 35 dated 6.3.2007<br /> Remaining documents required for transfer of the ownership of the car were submitted on 7.3.2007 i.e. Forms No.29, 30( i ) & ( ii ) & Rt No.643885 dated 7.3.2007. He has failed to furnish subrogation letter within 15 days. Alongwith the application for dismissal of the complaint, cheque No. 094426 dated 7.3.2007 amounting to Rs.3,74,000/- favouring ICICI Bank A/c Kulwant Singh was submitted which was received by the complainant through his counsel.<br /> 6. Complainant filed reply of the application moved by Sh. Gobind Aggarwal for dismissal of the application under section 27 of the Act stating that after passing of the order dated 5.10.2006, he himself had approached the opposite party and had submitted letter of subrogation within 15 days and had fulfilled the formalities as told to him by the opposite party. At that time, he was not apprised that any other formality on his part was required to be completed . According to him, opposite party has not made payment of interest on Rs.3,74,000/-.<br /> 7. On 10.4.2007, arguments regarding the complaint/application under section 27 of the Act, reply to it, application of Sh. Gobind Aggarwal for dismissal of the complaint and reply to it were heard and the case was adjourned to 13.4.2007 for orders.<br /> 8. On 12.4.2007, application was moved by Sh. Gobind Aggarwal for depositing cheque No.049427 of Rs. 1,18,456/- stating that interest on Rs.3,74,000/- is payable upto 26.11.2006 with costs which in his view was not payable due to bonafide misunderstanding of the rider clause of the order dated 5.10.2006. Accordingly, cheque of RS.3,74,000/-was tendered on 7.3.2007. Now, when bonafide mistake/bonafide misreading has come to his knowledge, application alongwith cheque has been submitted for payment of the amount to the complainant after deducting Rs.500/- towards excess clause. As per Sh. Gobind Aggarwal, application is towards full and final satisfaction of the order dated 5.10.2006.<br /> 9. Complainant filed reply of the application dated 12.4.2007 with legal objections that application is not maintainable; it is based on false facts & opposite party intentionally has not made compliance of the order. Rather, Sh. Gobind Aggarwal submitted false affidavit for dismissal of the complaint under section 27 of the Act. Eve now, Rs.500/- have been deducted regarding excess clause which cannot be deducted. Sh. Gobind Aggarwal never stated that he would make the remaining payment if found deficient. He is moving application after application and has filed affidavit as well stating that order has been complied with. Hence, he has intentionally violated the order.<br /> 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant/applicant argued that opposite party has intentionally violated the order dated 5.10.2006 passed by this Forum. <br /> 12. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that due to bonafide misunderstanding of the rider clause, order dated 5.10.2006 could not be properly appreciated. When this misunderstanding came to the notice, cheque for Rs.1,18,356/- has been delivered to the complainant through his counsel. He further argued that infact complainant did not perform his duty till 7.3.2007. For this, he drew our attention to the photocopy of the receipt dated 7.3.2007 regarding deposit of Rs.200/- with Registering Authority, Bathinda, photocopies of Forms No.29, 30 (Part-1), 30 (Part-2), photocopy of the letter dated 6.3.2007 of ICICI Bank to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding No Objection Certificate, copy of Form No. 35, copy of the letter of subrogation and of Special Power of Attorney dated 6.3.2007,copy of the letter dated 6.3.2007 of the complainant to the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., copy of the affidavit dated 6.3.2007 of the complainant, copies of the letters dated 20.2.2007, 19.2.2007 & 19.01.2007 of the opposite party to this Forum, complainant and to this Forum respectively and copy of the letter dated 27.12.2006. <br /> 13. We have considered respective arguments. Material question for determination is as to whether there is willful and intentional disobedience on the part of the opposite party concerning the order of this Forum passed on 5.10.2006. Copies of the order were supplied to the complainant and opposite party on 17.10.2006. Complainant was to execute letter of subrogation as per order of this Forum in favour of opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Clause No. ( iv ) of para No. 16 of the order makes it crystal clear that in case complainant did not execute the letter of subrogation as per clause ( i ), he would not be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.3,74,000/- after 1-1/2 months after the receipt of the copy of order. As is evident from the perusal of the record, complainant could not complete the letter of subrogation within 15 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. It means, complainant does not become entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.3,74,000/- after 1-1/2 months after the receipt of the copy of the order meaning thereby that he cannot claim interest on the amount of Rs.3,74,000/- after 2.12.2006. As per clause No. ( ii ) of para No. 16 of the order, opposite party became liable to pay interest on RS.3,74,000/- from 27.5.2003. When clauses No. ( i ), ) ( ii ) & ( iv ) are read together keeping in view the fact that complainant did not execute proper letter of subrogation, he is entitled to the interest on Rs. 3,74,000/-@ 9% P.A from 27.5.2003 till 2.12.2006. There is no ambiguity in clause No. (iv) of para No. 16 of the order. Opposite party is liable to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-. Despite this, opposite party neither paid the costs of the complaint nor interest from 27.5.2003. Opposite party filed reply of the complaint under section 27 of the Act on 27.2.2007 making the prayer that complaint be dismissed with costs. Till then, no compliance of the order passed by this Forum was made. Not to speak of this, another application was moved by the opposite party on 12.3.2007 for dismissal of the application under section 27 of the Act. On 12.3.2007 again full compliance of the order dated 5.10.2006 was not made. Only cheque for Rs.3,74,000/- was delivered to the complainant through his counsel. Prayer in the application was also to the effect that application under section 27 of the Act is pre-mature and has been filed on wrong facts to harass him. On 12.3.2007, neither costs of the complaint nor due interest from 27.5.2003 till 2.12.2006 was deposited. Final arguments regarding the complaint were heard on 10.4.2007 for considering as to whether there is disobedience of the order passed by this Forum or not. Case was posted for orders for 13.4.2007. On 12.4.2007, opposite party woke up from deep slumber and moved application alongwith cheque dated 7.3.2007 of Rs.1,18,356/- stating that due to bonafide misunderstanding of the rider clause has not come to his knowledge. Clause No. ( iv ) of para No. 16 of the order is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity in it. Payment of Rs.3,74,000/- was made through cheque dated 7.3.2007 on 12.3.2007. Opposite party prepared the cheque for Rs.1,18,356/- on 7.3.2007. It means that he was fully aware that the payment of the amount towards interest and costs was to be paid. Despite this, he kept cheque dated 7.3.2007 for Rs.1,18,356/- with him till 12.4.2007 intentionally. We are constrained to remark that this has been done by him in order to cause harassment to the complainant. This is not the end of the game. There is nothing in the order of this Forum that opposite party is to deduct any amount from the amount ordered by it. Opposite party was required to make meticulous compliance of the order. Despite this, he made deduction of Rs.500/- towards excess clause and interest after 27.11.2006 till 2.12.2006 has not been paid. Even Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint were not paid with the cheque for Rs.3,74,000/- on 12.3.2007. Despite all this, opposite party went to the extent of submitting affidavit that complaint under section 27 of the Act be dismissed. He never stated that he wants to make the remaining payment if found deficient. He is moving application after application although full compliance of the order passed by this Forum has not been made till now. <br /> 14. In the premises written above, we have no hesitation in concluding that opposite party has willfully and intentionally flouted the order dated 5.10.2006 passed by this Forum by way of not making full compliance of it till now. It stands proved that opposite party has not complied with the order within the prescribed time and as such, he is punishable under section 27 of the Act.<br /> 15. Keeping all the relevant facts and circumstances in view, we find that the ends of justice would meet in case opposite party is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) within a period of one month from today failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Ordered accordingly. Application moved by the opposite party for dismissal of the complaint is dismissed and his prayer in the reply of the complaint for dismissal of the complaint/application under section 27 of the Act is also declined. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.04.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />