NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JOSE PAUL PALATTY
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-12-6
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 05,2009

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Jose Paul Palatty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE above revision is preferred from the order dated 26th February, 2009 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in EP No. 116/2002 in OP No. 1101/01. The Revision Petitioner was the opposite party in OP No. 1101/01. The complaint in the said OP No. 1101/01 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, National Insurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim of Rs. 15,000/ -. The aforesaid complaint in OP 1101/01 was disposed of by the order dated 07 -08 -2002 directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/ - with 12% interest from 19 -09 -2001 till the date of realization and costs of Rs. 500/ - to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner herein filed first appeal as Appeal No. 737/02 challenging the order dated 07 -08 -2002 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP 1101/01. Along with the said appeal a stay petition was also moved by the appellant/opposite party and this State Commission passed an order on the stay petition directing the appellant/opposite party to deposit Rs. 15,000/ - with interest at 12% per annum and costs of Rs. 500/ -. It is also made further clear that in case of deposit the respondent/complainant will not be allowed to withdraw the amount. In the light of the aforesaid conditional order passed by this State Commission, the appellant/opposite party deposited the aforesaid decree amount with interest and costs before the Forum below. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of by the State Commission vide order dated 11 -09 -2007 and thereby the aforesaid appeal No. 737/02 was dismissed. The complainant in OP No. 1101/01 moved the Forum below by filing EP 116/02 to get the order executed. The judgment debtor (National Insurance Company Ltd.) entered appearance in the said execution petition and submitted that the Insurance Company had already deposited the entire decree debt with interest and costs and so the judgment debtor has no liability to pay any amount to the decree holder/complainant. It is further submitted that no amount is due to the decree holder from the judgment debtor because of the deposit of decree debt with interest and costs before the Forum below. But the respondent/decree holder insisted for interest till the date of realization. The aforesaid claim for subsequent interest after the deposit of the amount was resisted by the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor. After hearing both sides the Forum below accepted the case of the respondent/decree holder and thereby passed the impugned order dated 26 -02 -2009 directing the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 10,535/ - after deducting the deposited amount of Rs. 18,350/ -. In other words, the Forum below calculated the total amount due to the decree holder by way of decree amount, interest and costs at Rs. 28,885/ -. The case of the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor is that the respondent/decree holder is only entitled to get the amount of Rs. 18,350/ - which was in deposit. Hence the present revision by judgment debtor.
(2.)WHEN this revision petition was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/decree holder. We heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that after effecting deposit of the entire decree amount with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 18,350/ - no amount was due to the respondent/decree holder and that the claim for interest even after making the aforesaid deposit of Rs. 18,350/ - is unsustainable and untenable. Thus, the Revision Petitioner requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the execution court (CDRF, Ernakulam) in EP No. 116/02 in OP No. 1101/01.
(3.)XXX XXX XXX
The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the respondent/decree holder can be justified in demanding interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the decree amount of Rs. 15,000/ - from 19 -09 -2001 till the date of realization?

2. Whether the contention of the Revision Petitioner that the liability of the Revision Petitioner/judgment debtor was only to pay the decree amount with interest and costs till the date of deposit can be upheld?

3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26 -02 -2009 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in EP 116/02



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.