http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 747  of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  16945    of  2000

PETITIONER: M/S.  JIT RAM SHIV KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NATIONAL INSURANCE COPMPANY LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/01/2001

BENCH: S.V.Patil, D.P.Mohapatro

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     Shivaraj V.  Patil,J.

     Leave granted.

     In  this  appeal the controversy raised is limited  in regard to payment of interest and it arises out of the order passed   by  the  National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal Commission  on execution side.  For the purpose of  disposal of  this  appeal it is unnecessary to narrate the  facts  in detail.  Hence we briefly state them as under:  -

     The  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:  -

     There is, therefore, no doubt that the repudiation of the  claim  by  the   Opposite  Party-Insurance  Company  is malafide.    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 Party  Insurance Co.  should pay to the complainant-insured  as  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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

     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 Appeal No.   3110/93, filed by the respondent, this Court has stated, thus:  -

     So  far  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  at 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 surveyor,  the  appellant 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.

     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 petition:  -

     We have 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.

     It is this order, which is impugned in this appeal.

     The learned counsel for the appellant, pointing out to the  order  of this Court dated  23.9.1999,  aforementioned, contended  that the order of the National Commission  giving direction  for  payment was confirmed by this  Court  except direction  3,  i.e., payment of the compensation of  Rs.1.00 lakh  for  the  unjustified  delay  and  harassment  to  the respondent  in  repudiating the claim.  He added  that  this Court  did not find any infirmity as far as the question  of payment  of  interest  is concerned.   The  learned  counsel submitted  that the National Commission did not consider  as to  whether the entire amount that was to be paid  according

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to  the  order  of  the  National  Commission  contained  in directions 1, 2 and 4 as affirmed by this Court, was paid to the  appellant  or not;  without anything more the  National Commission simply stated that the order of the Supreme Court was  carried  out  by  the  Insurance  Company;   hence  the Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of.  The learned counsel further submitted that a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant  clearly shows that an amount of Rs.4,02,649/- is still  due  to be paid to the appellant, calculated  on  the basis of the order by the National Commission as modified by this Court.

     The  learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this  Court  in  Civil Appeal No.  3110/93,  while  granting interim  order, directed the respondent to deposit a sum  of Rs.8,20,575/-  with  interest at the rate of 12%  per  annum from  12.8.1987  within  six weeks with the liberty  to  the appellant  to  withdraw  the said  amount;   the  respondent accordingly  deposited a sum of Rs.13,91,995.44;  since  the respondent  had  already  deposited the  amount  along  with interest  of  12%  per annum, it was not liable  to  pay  6% interest  on  the  principal amount of  Rs.8,20,575/-.   The learned  counsel further urged that the National  Commission having  ordered  for payment of interest at the rate of  18% per annum as per direction 2, payment of further interest at the  rate  of  18%  per annum on  the  amount  mentioned  in directions 1 and 2 amounts to granting interest on interest.

     We  have  considered  the submissions of  the  learned counsel  for the parties.  It is clear from the order  dated 23.9.1999  of  this  Court that the order  of  the  National Commission  stood confirmed except direction 3 given in  the operative  portion of the order of the National  Commission. This  Court  on  30.10.2000 in the present case at  the  SLP stage, had passed the following order:-

     Notice  will  be issued to show cause why the  matter should  not  be disposed of on the basis of the  Certificate issued  by the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, dated 24.8.2000.

     The  National  Commission unfortunately has  not  gone into  the  details  and  did not discuss  as  to  the  rival contentions.   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 with 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 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

     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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.

     The  appeal is allowed accordingly.  There shall be no order as to costs.