J.K.DHINGRA vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant made a petition for compensation to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act for Rs. 5 lacs on account of injury sustained in a road accident involving a motor vehicle. The claim petition was, ultimately, settled before Lok Adalat on 8.4.1989 for Rs. 1,00,000/- which was, admittedly accepted by the claim petitioner. There was no mention about the grant of any interest in the said order. No appeal having been filed, the said order has become final.

THE petitioner, however, filed claim for the grant of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from 10.7.1987, the date of making the claim petition till date of its decision namely 19.4.1989 amounting to Rs. 22,240/-. THE complaint was filed before District Forum-I. At one stage, it was dismissed for a default. Later on, it was restored and again dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.12.1994 on the ground that it was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. Reply has been filed on behalf of United India Assurance Company, respondent. It has been stated that the applicant is not a ''consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act, that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with special costs. It has further been stated that the present complaint is misconceived, vaxatious and not maintainable. It has also been stated that any question relating to compensation including interest was squarely within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act and separate proceedings did not lie. It has also been pointed out that disposal of the claim petition before the Lok Adalat was in terms of settlement between the parties and he was estopped from filing any further complaint in that behalf. Lastly, it has been pointed out that Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act which ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was equally applicable to the present Forum from entertaining all questions arising out of motor vehicle accident. In the written note filed by the appellant it has been stated that being a beneficiary of the amount, he is covered under the definition of the word ''consumer''. It has further been stated that decision by, the Lok Adalat was akin to decision by an Arbitrator and it was settled law that Arbitrator had ample powers to grant interest. The contention of the appellant is that there was no reason why the complainant was not awarded any interest and there i? no bar to such a claim being entertained and allowed by the Forum. We have carefully considered the respective submissions.

The claim petition of the appellant before MACT/Lok Adalat was disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties. In the facts of the present case, the compromise did not extend to the award of interest. That order having not been assailed by way of appeal etc. has become final. It is extremely doubtful whether a fresh petition at this stage made before the MACT claiming interest would be maintainable.

IN Chairman, Thirivulluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC) it was said down that the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim claiming compensation on account of accident involving the use of motor vehicle as exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. IN view of the said exclusion, claim for interest, which is a part of the claim, for compensation also stands excluded from the jurisdiction of the FORA. It is settled law that where a relief asked for by the party is not granted, it is deemed to have been refused. The appellant having failed to challenge the award of MACT/Lok Adalat with regard to interest cannot re-open that question by an independent complaint. In the present case, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation was given on the basis of compromise between the parties. The complainant accepted the said amount. He is, therefore, estopped from filing an independent complaint claiming interest. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum-I. Appeal dismissed with costs.