UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY vs KISHORI LAL SAKLANI

HEARD. The appeal has been filed against the following: (Hindi Matter Omitted).

THE brief facts of the case are that the complaint of the complainant, Sh. Kishori Lal Saklani was allowed by the learned Forum on 5.7.1994 with the following observations: "Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 56,726/- to the complainants together with simple interest @ 15% per annum from 1.11.1991 till the date of actual payment. THEy shall further pay Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainants. This order must be complied with by 31.8.1994." The United India Insurance Co. filed the appeal before the State Commission, Lucknow and the State Commission, Lucknow passed the order: "Implementation of the order of the District Forum shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal provided within a month from today appellants pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 500/- awarded as cost and deposit with it in the form of FDR favouring the President of the Forum and valid for three years a sum of Rs. 56,726/-."

This means that the appellant was directed to deposit cost of Rs. 500/- and the actual amount of Rs. 56,726/- and no further. There was absolutely no direction to deposit the interest. The stay order was passed to be operative till the disposal of the appeal.

The appeal was dicided by the State Commission, Uttranchal on 22.4.2003 and the appeal was dismissed. Then the fact remains that the proceedings were stayed from 1997 till 2003 and in that period it was neither necessary, nor obligatory, nor legal for the Insurance Company to deposit the interest. The complainant could not have in any way gone against the said order and asked the Insurance Company to deposit the interest. Then after the stay was vacated, the execution proceedings started and vide order dated 10.6.2003, the Forum without hearing the appellant passed the order directing the appellant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 8,124/- (Rupees eight thousand one hundred twenty-four) as well within a week. This amount is said to be due against the Insurance Company and according to the Insurance Company, this amount is not due. We are not concerned here whether this amount is due or not. There is also no finding in the order dated 28.10.2003 that any amount is due or not or the execution application stands satisfied or not but the learned Forum wrote that in the obedience of order dated 5.7.1994, the amount of Rs. 56,726/- shall be deposited in the Forum but the interest has not been deposited on 11.6.1997 but has been deposited on 19.5.2003 after about 6 years. Therefore, the appellant has not complied the orders of the Forum, therefore, it has committed offence, therefore, the company is fined for Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand). The fine cannot be awarded in this fashion. this is a punitive order. for that a separate show-cause notice should have been issued to the appellant. No such show-cause notice has been issued and all of a sudden, the learned Forum chose to punish the Insurance Company without affording any opportunity whether punishment should be imposed or not? It is one thing to get an order complied. It is other thing to punish a party for non-compliance of that order. If for non-compliance of that order, punishment is to be imposed, necessary opportunity is to be given to the effected party to explain his conduct. No such opportunity has been given in this case. The order, therefore, appears to be vitiated.

EVEN otherwise, the order is totally incorrect. When the proceedings have been stayed by the State Commission vide order dated 12.5.1997 and while the deposit has been made in compliance of this order by 11.6.1997 within a month as directed by the State Commission and when there was no direction to deposit the interest, therefore, it was not desirable for the Insurance Company to have deposited the interest. The order to deposit interest by the learned Forum has been stayed by the State Commission and during the stay, there cannot be any contempt of the order. It appears that the complainant has played a fraud with the Forum by not informing the Forum that the proceedings have been stayed by the learned State Commission and whatsoever the direction to deposit was given has been deposited in time, otherwise the learned Forum could not have passed such an order. If the learned Forum has passed such an order knowingly that the proceedings have been stayed by the learned State Commission then the learned Forum has committed a contempt. If the complainant has not informed this fact to the learned forum and has obtained this order suppressing the said order then the complainant has not only played a fraud on the Forum but has also committed contempt of the order passed by the State Commission. However, the order above is unjustified and is to be quashed. We do not give any finding whether there are dues of the complainant or not but certainly we hereby direct the Forum to make an inquiry into the fact whether it has been defrauded by the complainant and if the Forum has been defrauded and an contempt of the order of the State Commission has been committed, the learned Forum is directed to proceed with the complaint to take suitable action why that fact has been suppressed and why an incorrect order has been obtained suppressing the said order of the State Commission. With these observations and in view of what has been said above, the order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the learned Forum is liable to be quashed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 28.10.2003 is hereby quashed. The complaint is also dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.