Case: M/S Jit Ram Shiv Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd

For the purpose of disposal of this appeal it is unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail. Hence we briefly state them as underThe appellant filed Original Petition No. 30 of 1992 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the `National Commission) against the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. The said petition was allowed by the order of the National Commission dated 15.4.1993. Operative portion of it readsis, therefore, no doubt that the repudiation of the claim by the OppositeCompany is mala fide. There has also been inordinate delay in repudiating the claim depriving the complainant of a sum of Rs. 8,20,575/which obviously would have caused serious inconvenience and financial embarrassment of the insured. We therefore order as under :The oppositeCo. should pay to theas under :1. Rs. 8,20,575/the full insured value of the consignment, actually paid by the complainant for import of logs of wood.2. Interest at the rate of 18% per annum after the elapse of 6 months from the date of lodging of the claim on 12.2.1987 viz. from 12.6.1987.3. A compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh for the unjustified delay and harassment to the insured in repudiating the claim.4. Interest at the rate of 18% on the above mentioned amounts after 30 days of the date of this order till the payment is made."Against the said order of the National Commission the respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 3110/93 and the appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 4330/93 in this Court to the extent they were aggrieved. This Court, by order dated 23.9.1999, disposed of both the appeals. By the said order Civil Appeal No. 3110/93 was partly allowed rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 4330/93 filed by the appellant. While dealing with Civil Court No. 3110/93, filed by the respondent, this Court has stated, thusfar as the question of quantum of interest is concerned, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Commission except that the order of the Commission requires a little alteration so that the date "12.6.1987" is altered to "12.8.1987" in consonance with the judgment of the Commission itself.The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh has been ordered by the Commission on the ground of unjustified delay and harassment of the respondent. Having regard to the facts of this case, specially the fact that the loss of timber which was purchased was loaded to Malaysia and the ship which was to come to Visakhapatnam was lost on High Sees and having regard to the further fact that the investigation in the claim of the respondent who had initially not furnished all the documents to the appellant, had to be carried in a foreign country with the help of the survey, the appellants were justified in taking time in repudiating the claim of the respondent after due investigation. To that extent, therefore, the claim of the respondent is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. In view of the above the appeal is partly allowed. The claim of the respondent for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh allowed by the Commission is rejected but the rest of the order is maintained. The appeal is disposed of in the matter indicated above."4. Since the amount paid by the respondent did not satisfy the claim fully, the appellant filed execution petition before the National Commission being Miscellaneous Petition No. 5/2000 (in Original Petition No. 30/1992). The National Commission passed the following order in the said Miscellaneous petitionhave read the papers. We are of the view that the order of the Supreme Court is carried out by the Insurance Company. The Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of."5. It is this order, which is impugned in thisthe purpose of disposal of this appeal it is unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail. Hence we briefly state them as undere appellant filed Original Petition No. 30 of 1992 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the `National Commission) against the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. The said petition was allowed by the order of the National Commission dated 15.4.1993. Operative portion of it reads, therefore, no doubt that the repudiation of the claim by the Oppositey is mala fide. There has also been inordinate delay in repudiating the claim depriving the complainant of a sum of Rs. 8,20,575/which obviously would have caused serious inconvenience and financial embarrassment of the insured. We therefore order as under :The opposite. should pay to theas under :1. Rs. 8,20,575/the full insured value of the consignment, actually paid by the complainant for import of logs of wood.2. Interest at the rate of 18% per annum after the elapse of 6 months from the date of lodging of the claim on 12.2.1987 viz. from 12.6.1987.3. A compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh for the unjustified delay and harassment to the insured in repudiating the claim.4. Interest at the rate of 18% on the above mentioned amounts after 30 days of the date of this order till the payment is made."Against the said order of the National Commission the respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 3110/93 and the appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 4330/93 in this Court to the extent they were aggrieved. This Court, by order dated 23.9.1999, disposed of both the appeals. By the said order Civil Appeal No. 3110/93 was partly allowed rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 4330/93 filed by the appellant. While dealing with Civil Court No. 3110/93, filed by the respondent, this Court has stated, thusfar as the question of quantum of interest is concerned, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Commission except that the order of the Commission requires a little alteration so that the date "12.6.1987" is altered to "12.8.1987" in consonance with the judgment of the Commission itself.The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh has been ordered by the Commission on the ground of unjustified delay and harassment of the respondent. Having regard to the facts of this case, specially the fact that the loss of timber which was purchased was loaded to Malaysia and the ship which was to come to Visakhapatnam was lost on High Sees and having regard to the further fact that the investigation in the claim of the respondent who had initially not furnished all the documents to the appellant, had to be carried in a foreign country with the help of the survey, the appellants were justified in taking time in repudiating the claim of the respondent after due investigation. To that extent, therefore, the claim of the respondent is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. In view of the above the appeal is partly allowed. The claim of the respondent for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh allowed by the Commission is rejected but the rest of the order is maintained. The appeal is disposed of in the matter indicated above."4. Since the amount paid by the respondent did not satisfy the claim fully, the appellant filed execution petition before the National Commission being Miscellaneous Petition No. 5/2000 (in Original Petition No. 30/1992). The National Commission passed the following order in the said Miscellaneous petitione read the papers. We are of the view that the order of the Supreme Court is carried out by the Insurance Company. The Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of."5. It is this order, which is impugned in this

Reasoning: We do not see any difficulty in accepting the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant that the order of the National Commission dated 15.4.1993 was confirmed by this Court except direction 3 and a correction of date which regard to payment of interest in direction 2 from 12.6.1987 to 12.8.1987. Hence the respondent was bound to satisfy the claim of the appellant including the interest as stated in item 4 of the order of the National Commission. It is not an interest over interest but it is in an interest awarded on delayed payment. Merely because this Court, while granting an interim order, directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,20,575/with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum in Civil Appeal No. 3110/93 pending disposal of the appeal, it cannot be said that liability of the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum as per direction 4 of the order of the National Commission, ceased.10. Under these circumstances we find merit in the appeal. In the light of what is stated above, the respondent is liable to pay the remaining amount as indicated in the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in terms of the order of the National Commission dated 15.4.1993 as modified by the order of this Court dated 23.9.1999 in Civil Appeal No. 3110/93. The respondent is entitled to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant. We make it clear that the respondent is not liable to pay interest from the date on which such amount has actually been received by the appellant in terms of the order of the National Commission as modified by this Court.