Guide International vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Execution Application No. 17 of 1999 in Original Complaint No. 69 of 1997 which was dismissed as satisfied.

BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner filed a complaint on 7.11.1997 before the State Commission against respondent-OPs for recovery of Rs. 37,89,697 along with damages to the tune of Rs. 9,60,000 and the State Commissionvide judgment dated 14.6.1999 partly accepted the complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 9,60,672.25 along with interest @ 12% p.a. thereon with effect from 8.2.1992 allowing three months '' time from the commission of theft to settle the claim to the complainant till payment. It was further ordered that the amount of Rs. 5,43,563 paid by OP on 23.10.1997 will be adjusted. Opposite party paid Rs. 15,54,080 to the complainantvide cheque dated 2.5.2007, but complainant-decree holder further alleged that the amount of Rs. 7,50,316.99 is still outstanding against the OP-judgment debtors with interest @ 12% p.a., hence, filed execution petition which was dismissed.

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after deducting interest @ 12% p.a. from 8.2.1992 to 22.10.1997, the total amount payable by the opposite party was Rs. 16,18,666.94 out of which, only Rs. 5,43,563 was paid by the opposite party on 23.10.1997, hence, petitioner is entitled to recover Rs. 10,75,103.94 with interest @ 12% p.a. up to 4.5.2007 which comes to Rs. 23,09,251.82 against which opposite party has paid only Rs. 15,54,080. Thus, still, Rs. 7,50,316.99 are payable with interest whereas the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party paid Rs. 5,43,563 to the complainant on 23.10.1997i.e. prior to filing of the complaint, hence, this amount is to be reduced from the principal amount of Rs. 9,60,672.25 and thereafter interest @ 12% p.a. is to be calculated on the remaining principal amount of Rs. 4,17,109 and no interest is payable on the interest amount of Rs. ,57,889 and opposite party has already made full payment and the learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing the execution application, hence, this revision petition may be dismissed. 6. State Commissionvide judgment dated 14.6.1999 directed opposite party to pay Rs. 9,60,672.25 along with interest @ 12% p.a. and further ordered that the amount of Rs. 5,43,563 paid by opposite party on 23.10.1997 will be adjusted. State Commission nowhere expressed in its judgment that this amount is to be adjusted firstly against the interest amount and remaining amount is to be adjusted against the principal amount. In such circumstances, State Commission has not committed any error in adjusting this amount against the principal amount of Rs. 9,60,672.25.

OPPOSITE partyvide letter dated 23.10.1997 sent a cheque dated 22.10.1997 for Rs. 5,43,563 and clearly expressed that this amount has been sent in full and final settlement of the claim. Petitionervide letter dated 7.11.1997 replied as under: "We accept this cheque as a part payment issued by you against our claim and under protest reserving our right to avail legal remedy pertaining to receive full claim amount along with interest and damages, which is pending in the Hon ''ble Court of Law, State Consumer Forum, because you have failed to settle our claim within reasonable period of timei.e. more than 6 years have elapsed and even without any response against legal notice sent by our Solicitors, you have not responded. We again inform you this cheque for Rs. 5,43,563 is a part payment only.Needless to mention that we have already since filed claim against your Insurance Company, which is pending in State Dispute Settlement Forum, Chandigarhand our right to receive said payment shall not be effected in any manner by virtue of receipt of said payment. "

IN this letter, the petitioner nowhere expressed that this amount has been appropriated by the petitioner against interest and damages receivable from opposite party. In these circumstances, petitioner is estopped from appropriating this amount against interest and State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing execution application. State Commission has rightly observed that if procedure suggested by the petitioner is adopted, it would go contrary to the orders dated 14.6.1999 passed by the State Commission.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in the case of GurpreetSingh v. Union of India, IX (2006) SLT 528=I (2007) CLT 87 (SC)=(2006) 8 SCC 457, and the State Commission has placed reliance on paragraph 27 of the said judgment. The Hon ''ble Supreme Court has clearly mentioned in last sentence of this paragraph "in other words, there is no obligation on the judgment-debtor to pay interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or deposited " which makes it crystal clear that amount paid by opposite party prior to filing of the complaint has to be appropriated by petitioner only against principal amount due from opposite party.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner could not place any other judgment of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in support of his argument and in such circumstances, it can be held that the State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing the execution application, as decree had been satisfied completely by the opposite party. In the light of the above discussion, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.