1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1179/2008 Ranjeet Singh. vs. Managing Director, Sri Ganganagar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. Date : 4.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.NL Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.BS Sandhu, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the order dated 27.3.2000, the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs.4,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with costs of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner preferred appeal to challenge the said order before the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. During pendency of the said appeal, it appears that the respondent Bank submitted a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission Consumer Protection) Rajasthan, Jaipur wherein vide order dated 12.2.2001, it was held that the amount was covered by insurance, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum commencing from three months after the date of 2 lodging its claim by the complainant bank obviously with Consumer Forum on 16.9.1996. The complainant bank was also awarded Rs.5,000/- as costs for litigation. This fact was taken note of by the appellate authority in its order dated 7.6.2005 and in the last para, it has been observed that the respondent bank has already recovered Rs.6,47,073/- and, therefore, that amount cannot be recovered again from the petitioner. The petitioner has apprehension that the amount which has been recovered by the respondent bank from the insurance company may again be recovered from the petitioner whereas learned counsel for the respondents submits that the apprehension is not well founded and the respondent bank is not recovering the amount twice – one from the insurance company and another from the petitioner. Since the respondent bank itself is not intending to recover any amount in excess than the liability of the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent bank shall not recover the amount in excess than the liability of the petitioner created by the basic order dated 27.3.2000, reduced by the amount already recovered from the insurance company. However, while doing so, the 3 respondent bank will be free to recover the interest as already awarded by the impugned order. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya