Somdutt vs State of Haryana and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.—This order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 3109 and 1728 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals. For reference, facts are taken from RSA No. 3109 of 2010. The judgment dated 23.12.2009 passed by the first Appellate Court, accepting the appeal filed by the defendants respondents (hereinafter referred as ''the defendants'') against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2009 passed by the trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as ''the plaintiff''), is under challenge.

2 The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction claiming that he was posted as Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rewari and was retired on 31.03.2000. On account of some disease, he remained admitted in Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi and spent huge amount on his treatment. After having discharged from the hospital, he submitted medical bills for reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 81,203/- in the month of June, 2006, which were forwarded by defendant No. 3 vide letter dated 26.06.2006 to defendant No. 2 for necessary approval. Thereafter, he made various representations in that regard, but his bills were not reimbursed.

Upon notice, the defendants filed written statement, wherein they took preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action etc. It was submitted that the defendants never caused delay in making the payment of the medical expenses. It was further submitted that, in fact, the bills amounting to Rs. 67893/- were sent to the competent authorities for approval, but as the bills were not submitted on essential form, therefore, some objections were raised and payment could not be released.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration with mandatory injunction as a consequential relief? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is premature? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act as well as 80 CPC? OPD

Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

Relief.

Both the parties led evidence. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 24.01.2009, decreed the suit to the following effect:-

In view of my discussion on the foregoing issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and same is hereby decreed. The defendants are directed to make the payment of Rs. 67,893/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date the payment became due till its realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.

However, in appeal, the first Appellate Court modified the judgment of the trial Court and it was held that the plaintiff would be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 41,533/- out of the amount of Rs. 67,893/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 3109 of 2010.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Som Dutt has urged that the plaintiff had submitted the medical bills worth Rs. 67,898/-, but the first Appellate Court had modified the judgment by reducing the amount to the extent of Rs. 41,533/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the basis of a letter dated 05.12.2008 issued by the competent authority. The translated copy of the said letter is reproduced as under:-

From Director; Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, Chandigarh.

To Secretary, Municipal Council, Rewari. Sr. No. BA-5-2008/51042 Dated 05.12.2008

Sub: Regd. Reimbursement of medical bills of Sh. Som Dutt, the then Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rewari.

Regarding the above mentioned subject in reference to your letter No. 64/Account dated 12.01.2006.

Directorate, as per your proposal hereby sanctioned the payment of Rs. 41,533/- out of medical bills of Rs. 67,898/- spent on the treatment of Sh. Som Dutt, the then Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rewari, at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi.

Annexure - Original Bill.

Sd/- Account Officer for: Director, Urban Local Bodies Haryana, Chandigarh

The competent authority sanctioned the payment of Rs. 41,533/- as against the medical bills of Rs. 67,898/- and as such, the, the sanctioning authority, without any reason, deducted the amount of Rs. 26,365/-. The letter dated 05.12.2008 is non-speaking and no deduction could be made on the basis of such letter, as such, the said amount cannot be deducted from the amount claimed and the plaintiff cannot be deprived of legitimate amount of bills, which he had spent over the treatment. As such, the observations made by the first Appellate Court are perverse, warranting interference by this Court.

Resultantly, RSA No. 3109 of 2010 is accepted; the impugned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside and the plaintiff-Som Dutt would be entitled to the claim of Rs. 67,898/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from December 2006, i.e. after six months of the date the bills were submitted. Consequently, RSA No. 1728 of 2010 is hereby dismissed.