ADVOCATE ARVIND GUPTA

Saturday, May 18, 2024

Claim raised from Man Made fire beofe NCDRC as confirmed by Forensic Report: Compelled to withdraw after 12 years


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 340 OF 2012

1. M/S. SRI GOUTAM TEX
Represented by its Partner R. Eswaramurthy, No. 4-B, Gopal Nagar, Nr. KVR Layout, Karurampalayan,
TIRUPUR.

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
NEW DELHI-110002.
2. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Divisional Office, A.A. Complex-Ist Floor,
59, KUMARAN ROAD,
TIRUPUR - 641 601.

...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI,PRESIDENT

FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

MR. P. V. HARIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE (PROXY)

(THROUGH VC)

FOR THE OPP. PARTY :

MR. ARVIND GUPTA, ADVOCATE

MR. MOHIT BIDHURI, ADVOCATE

MS. SUMAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE

MR. KANAV BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE

Dated : 14 May 2024

ORDER

Heard Mr. P.V. Harikrishnan. This matter had been extensively heard on 09.11.2023 when a detailed order was passed whereafter the case was adjourned on 08.12.2023 and a direction was issued on 05.02.2024 for filing of the affidavit in compliance of the earlier order.

Today learned Counsel for the Complainant on instructions states that the Complainant does not wish to proceed further with the Complaint and prays for its withdrawal. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Mr. Arvind Gupta is for the Oriental Insurance Company, he has no objection to the withdrawal. The complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.


.........................J
A. P. SAHI
PRESIDENT

NCDRC upholds the decision of State Commission in dismissing the Complaint being fraudulent claim.


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2014
(Against the Order dated 21/04/2014 in Complaint No. 19/2011 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)

1. M/S. GOYAL JOOT UDHYOG
THROUGH : PROPRIETOR,, SHRI AKHILESH AGRAWAL, S/O. SHRI RAMNARAYAN, AGRAWAL, BEHIND UMIYA BOARD MILL, INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAWABHATA, RAIPUR,
DISTRICT-RAIPUR
CHATTISGARH

...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
THROUGH: SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. 2, CHAWLA COMPLEX, SAI NAGAR, DEVENDRA NAGAR ROAD, RAIPUR,
DISTRICT-CHATTISGARH
2. SHRI S.K. KESHARWANI, SURVEYOR,
22, DURGA COLLEGE COMPLEX, K.K. ROAD, RAIPUR,
DISTRICT-RAIPUR
CHATTISGARH

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE BHARATKUMAR PANDYA,MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT :

MR. RAJESH KR. BHAWNANI, ADVOCATE

FOR THE RESPONDENT :

MR. ARVIND GUPTA, MR. MOHIT BIDHURI, MR. KANAV

BHARDWAJ, MS. SUMAN SHARMA, ADVOCATES

Dated : 08 May 2024

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. This appeal arises from order of the Chhattisgarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) dated 21.04.2014. The State Commission dismissed the Consumer Complaint 19/2011 holding that there is no merit in the complaint. The complaint before the State Commission involved an insurance claim under Standard Fire and Special Peril (SFSP) policy issued by the appellant. The complainant claimed to have suffered loss due to damage of stocks on account of flooding/inundation of godown. The State Commission dismissing the complaint observing as under:

29. In this case it seems that complainant has not obeyed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant has tried to say that he has sent the claim form to OP No. 1 but no surveyor was appointed. As it has been stated above that OP No. 1 has appointed OP No. 2 as surveyor but the surveyor has not inspected the spot and from the report of the Sourabh Shukla it is clear that the complainant has not proved that there was 3 to 4 feet water in the godown for which the goods were damage and which was thrown in the Nala by complainant

30. On the basis of above discussion the complainant has been totally failed to prove that the flood water has been entered in the godown for 3 to 4 feet and because of that the complainant has suffered loss. There is no evidence regarding the loss due to flood and the OPs has produced the evidence that Shri S.K. Kesharwani went for survey and he was stop from doing the survey in this way the loss was not calculated and for this complainant himself is responsible. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

2. The same has been challenged by the appellant by raising the following main contentions:

(1) That the order passed by the State Commission is devoid of law as State Commission has not perused the documents and affidavit filed by the complainant properly and therefore is liable to be set aside.

(2) That there was heavy rain from 13.07.2009 to 15.07.2009 and rain water entered into the factory thereby damaging the stocks of the complainant due to which complainant suffered heavy losses.

(3) That the intimation of the incident was given in writing on 15.07.2009 to the opposite party but no spot surveyor was appointed and State Commission overlooked this important fact.

(4) That OP insurer did not appoint any surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the complainant and thereby violated the guidelines issued by the IRDA regarding appointment of surveyor.

(5) That after 9 days of the incident, surveyor was sent by the insurer and surveyor was not having any order of his appointment from the insurance company.

(6) That State Commission overlooked the important fact that surveyor could have brought his order of appointment given to him by the insurer and instead gave findings which are erroneous and not according to law. As surveyor was appointed after 48 hours of the incident, no calculation was done regarding the loss suffered by the complainant.

(7) That the request of the complainant to appoint surveyor, who can assess the loss and the amount of claim be paid accordingly, was overlooked by the State Commission.

(8) That State Commission overlooked the fact that surveyor has to be appointed within 48 hours and due to appointment of surveyor at latter stage no calculation could be done regarding the loss suffered by the complainant.

(9) That complainant submitted his claim form along with all the documents but State Commission overlooked this fact and passed an illegal order which is not maintainable and deserves to be set aside.

(10) That complainant filed all the proofs regarding damage of products due to heavy rain but State Commission totally ignored all these facts.

(11) That cross examination of the surveyor, Branch Manager and Investigator cleared that they had not performed their duty as per the guidelines of IRDA and State Commission gave its observations against the norms of law.

(12) That investigator went to the factory of the complainant after many days of the incident and State Commission’s finding regarding the level of the water is erroneous.

(13) That the finding of the State Commission that complainant has not allowed the surveyor to inspect the spot, is against the insurance Act and against the norms of law.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. Insurance Co. has filed its short synopsis of arguments.

4. It has been contended by the Insurance Company that as per the complaint due to heavy rain in the Raipur city from 13.07.2009 to 15.07.2009, appellant suffered huge losses as it was a flood like situation. But when on 24.07.2009 insurer sent its surveyor to assess the loss, the appellant did not allow him to inspect the premises. As per insurance company, appellant knowingly created the obstruction so that size and type of godown, real water level, proof regarding the quantity of goods available and damaged, sale and purchase registers, builty, receipt, challan, stock register, damaged goods and its chemical test, debris, difference of the weight of the wet goods and dry goods, etc. could not be assessed or known or ascertained. Appellant discarded the goods in the Rawabhata Nala and that too without intimating the insured and without inspection by the surveyor. Since surveyor was not allowed to inspect the premises, the assessment of loss of goods turned out to be zero. No claim could be culled out as no goods or debris could be assessed. A highly exaggerated and unsubstantiated claim of loss suffered was made in order to obtain huge money but neither the proof of debris nor the proof of material which was lost, was given. OP insurer again requested the appellant on 04.08.2009 as also on 06.08.2009 to give them an opportunity to inspect their premises so that exact loss could be assessed but no such permission was granted. As neither the surveyor was allowed to inspect premises of the appellant nor any evidence was produced to substantiate that flood water entered the godown and water was up to the height of 3 - 4 feet, the claim for Rs.48 lakhs appears to be false, baseless and frivolous. As per the report of Mr. Sourabh Shukla, investigator, rain water which gathered between 13.07.2009 to 15.07.2009 was only one feet and the same was taken out immediately, Moreover, no proof or photographs regarding the damage of goods due to water in the godown were produced. Surveyor visited the premises of the appellant thrice but he was not allowed to enter the premises to assess the actual loss suffered by the appellant. Thus, it was pleaded that the State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint.

5. It is further contended by the appellant that due to continuous rainfall from 13.07.2009 to 15.07.2009 flood water entered in the factory and damaged various stocks kept therein leading to a loss of Rs.48 lakhs. Appellant immediately informed the insurance company on 15.07.2009. No spot surveyor was immediately sent by the insurance company. On 24.07.2009 one surveyor came but as he could not produce any appointment order from the insurance company, he returned back to bring the same. The wet stock kept in the godown was creating problem to the nearby residing people and, therefore, the same was to be thrown by the appellant in the Rawabhata Nala. Then on 27.07.2009, OP 2 surveyor came to the factory of the appellant but without doing any survey he went from the factory. On 04.08.2009, appellant wrote a letter to OP 1, who sent the claim form to the appellant on the same day, which was filled by the appellant and submitted to OP 1 on the very same day. Insurer appointed Mr. Sourabh Shukla, Advocate as Investigator to inspect the factory of the appellant. Investigator conducted inspection of the factory and asked questions in the form of questionaries, which were replied by the appellant. On 24.03.2010 OP insurer intimated the appellant they are repudiating their claim and are closing the same as “No claim”. Being aggrieved, appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

6. We have gone through the impugned order as also the evidence on record. Many of the facts of the case as discussed by the State Commission appears to be indisputable. From various letters i.e. dated 04.08.2009 (page 114 of the complaint), dated 06.08.2009 (page 115 of the complaint) and letter dated 07.08.2009 (page 116 of the complaint) written by the insurance company to the appellant, it is very clear that appellant did not allow the surveyor Mr. S.K. Kesarwani to inspect and assess the loss. On 04.08.2009 surveyor visited appellant’s godown with appointment, but neither was he allowed inspection and to assess the loss nor was he given entry into the premises. Vide letter dated 21.08.2009, insurance company deputed Mr. Saurabh Shukla, Advocate as investigator to conduct inspection of the premises of appellant and to submit his investigation report along with relevant documents in support thereof. Investigator submitted his report on 18.02.2010, which is annexed at page no. 204 of the complaint. As per investigation report, statements of various nearby working persons were obtained e.g. Fulasram Sahu (servicing the vehicles), Salma Bai Khan (Tea stall owner), Ramesh Patel (Director, Umiya Board Mill), Amatlal Pandey (Manager, Harish Petrol Pump), Owner of Bihari Tea Stall and Buddha Restaurant and various labourers at Bhanpuri and Rawabhatha. But none of them confirmed about the heavy rainfall between 13.07.2009 to 15.07.2009 and gathering of 3 to 4 feet water or dumping of any material in the Nala. Appellant stated that damaged goods were loaded on a Truck No. CG-04-4359 and thrown at the Nala by the driver named Pramod Mene. An affidavit of the said driver was submitted but a complete inability was shown in respect of license of the driver. However, the report of the investigator states that only one feet water was recorded to be gathered due to rainfall around the area where the godown of appellant is situated. Moreover, on observation of the wall condition it was found that there were no water marks to indicate or prove the level of water gathered in the godown to be between 3 to 4 feet height, though in genuine cases, if the water did accumulate and stayed in godown premises, such marks on the wall are to be expected.

7. During investigation of the appellant’s godown an electric meter and a 6-inch high cement strip was found inside and outside the warehouse. Electric meter was installed at the height of 2 feet inside the warehouse. Still, however, there were no signs of water being filled anywhere on the walls of the said place, which could prove the facts relating to appellant’s statement that water was filled in the warehouse upto the height of 4 feet.

8. Also it has been stated in the order of the State Commission that the proof of heavy rain during the alleged period of incident was very crucial and it was the duty of the appellant to file certificate of the Met Department to prove that actually there was a heavy rain on those particular dates, which was not done. State Commission in its impugned order has dismissed the complaint of the complainant by categorically observing that the complainant/appellant did not obey or honour the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Insurance company appointed its surveyor who was not allowed to inspect the spot. Report of the investigator clearly indicates that complainant has not proved that there was 3 to 4 feet water in the godown or that the alleged loss occurred due to such water-logging. There is no evidence regarding the fact or the quantum of loss due to flood and surveyor could not assess or calculate the loss and for this appellant himself is responsible. State Commission has also very rightly stated that complainant/appellant in any condition cannot destroy or dispose off the damaged goods until the permission is given by the insurance company. The appellant has not filed any affidavit of the employee or driver of the truck to prove that damaged stock was thrown away and nor there is any affidavit of the person living nearby, nor has he filed any evidence on the basis of which it can be proved that in the godown there was water up to 3 to 4 feet and consequently a particular quantity of goods were damaged.

9. The paramount fact established on record is that there is complete and palpable failure of the insured in establishing the cause and quantum of alleged loss. There is no plausible explanation for or credible evidence of the disposal of damaged goods. It is the obligation of the Insured to provide effective and full assistance and facilitation to the Insurer in assessing the alleged loss and in investigating the genuineness of the cause and quantum of loss. We therefore find that the State Commission has arrived at its decision on the basis of relevant facts and evidence on record. There is no illegality, infirmity of perversity in the findings given by, and in the decision arrived at by, the State Commission. The Complaint having been rightly dismissed, the appeal too deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.


..................................................J
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
PRESIDING MEMBER


.............................................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
MEMBER

Thursday, April 27, 2023

OPs are directed to pay the claim to complainant as assessed by Surveyor viz Rs.1,40,69,211/- by NCDRC, New Delhi


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 437 OF 2018

1. M/S. BEEKAY ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Through General Manager, Mr. S. G. Mani, Office : 45/47 Industrial Estate, Bhilai,
Durg
Chhattisgarh

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Regd. Office : 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sent Sarani,
Kolkata - 700071
West Bengal
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office : Akash Ganga Complex, Supela Bhilai
Durg
Chhattisgarh

...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :

Mr.Arvind Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Advocate and
Ms.Suman Sharma, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :

Mr. Niraj SinghAdvocate with
Mr.Dev Hans Kasana, Advocate

Dated : 24 April 2023

ORDER

DR.INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for following:-

a. declaring that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 has committed a deficiency of services and/or is guilty of unfair trade practice by not honoring its commitment under Policy No.285200/44/13/5050000002 dated 13.10.2013;

b. direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,40,69,221/-, the assessed amount accepted by the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 alongwith interest @ 12%;

c. direct Opposite Parties pay compensation to the tune of Rs1,40,000/- towards mental agony, harassment;

d. grant Rs.10 lakhs on account of legal expenses;

e. pending the hearing and final disposal of this complaint, the Opposite Party be ordered and directed to pay to the Complainant, an interim payment of Rs.93,07,135/- as admitted by the Opposite party with pendent lite interest @12% till the date of actual payment/realisation.

Notice was issued to the OP(s). Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and other case records are that: -

The Complainant purchased CNC Horizontal Machining Center Model- HMC 1200 BP with fanuc Oi MD CNC Controller & Standard Accessories for an amount of Rs$3,55,000/- on 08.02.2013 from M/s. You Ji Machine Industrial Company Ltd., address 92, Huanqiu Rd, Zhuyuan Vil, Luzhu Dist Kaohsiung City 82142 Taiwan (R.O.C.) On 11.10.2013 the Complainant obtained a Marine cum Erection Policy for a sum of $ 355000 from the Opposite Party No.1 being Policy No. 285200744/13/5050000002 valid for the period 11.10.2013 to 10.01.2014 insuring the fixed assets and stock of the Complainant insured lying at the insured premises as mentioned in the policy.

The above machine was kept in 4 containers to be delivered to the Complainant and the Consignment was handed over to the Complainant appointed Freight Forwarder, Navigator Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,Vadodara who have shipped the consignment from Kaohsiung Taiwan Port to Nava Sheva Port, Mumbai, out of the above 4 containers, one container fell down due to toppling of the Trailer in which it was loaded and main parts of the machine got damaged. On 18.10.2013 the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties that the trailer which was carrying the Flat Rack Container with two wooden crates overturned while turning into the lane where CFS entrance was located. After getting the information from the Complainant about the accident, the Opposite Parties immediately appointed Ashok Chopra & Company as a Surveyor to survey and inspect the cause of accident and the damages took place. The Supplier M/s You Ji Machine Industrial Company Ltd. re-exported the machine parts on 11.12.2014 to the Complainant after repairing the damaged machine.

On the basis of the information provided by the Complainant, the Surveyor submitted its report on 05.01.2016 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.1,40,69,211/-. The Opposite Party on noticing that certain claims are not payable to the Complainant and after deducting those items from the assessment made by the Surveyor, the amount payable was fixed at Rs1,32,95,907/-. It was also observed by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had not applied for any compensation from the shippers within the prescribed time frame and had also failed to disclose the date of sailing of vessel. Hence, the Opposite Party assessed the claim amount on non-standard basis and accordingly, deducted 30% from the amount of Rs1,32,95,907/- and informed the complainant on 22.08.2017 that their claim is recommended for Rs.93,07,135/- subject to compliance mentioned in the communication dated 22.08.2017. On 24.11.2017 the Opposite Party requested the Complainant to comply with the aforesaid requisition within a week failing which their claim will be treated as 'No claim'. On 01.12.2017, the Complainant declined to accept the amount offered by the Opposite Party. On 04.12.2017 the Opposite Party closed the claim of the Complainant as 'No claim'.

4. Heard counsels of both sides.

5. It was argued by the OPs that despite requests, the complainant did not provide all information to the Surveyor, based on the information provided by the Complainant, the Surveyor submitted its report on 05.01.2016 assessing the loss at Rs.1,40,69,211/-. As complainant had not applied for any compensation from the Shippers within the prescribed time frame and had also failed to disclose the date of sailing the vessel, OP assessed the claim amount as Rs.93,07,135/- on non-standard basis, deducting 30% from the amount of Rs.1,32,95,907/- which was arrived at by deducting certain claim items from the amount assessed by the Surveyor (Rs.1,40,69,211/-), which were found by OP as not payable. The amount of Rs.93,07,135/- was payable to complainant subject to compliance mentioned in OP’s mail dated 22.08.2017. As complainant failed to ensure complainant, the OP closed the claim as ‘No Claim’. OP further argued that Section 64 UM(4) of the Insurance Act, 1938 authorizes Insurance Company to settle the claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved Surveyor. In the present case, OP on thoroughly examining the Surveyor’s report found that Complainant had failed to provide certain invoices in order to substantiate its claim, due to which the claim was recommended for Rs.93,07,135/-.

6. The Complainant on the other hand argued that vide its letter dated 05.09.2017 and 26.10.2017, it requested OP to provide the calculations and working as to how the amount of Rs.93,07,135/- has been arrived at while the gross loss as assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.1,40,69,211/-. OP vide its letter dated 01.11.2017 sent the complainant detailed calculations in two sheets. The action of OP in rejecting the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 04.12.2017 is arbitrary and amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Complainant contended that it submitted all the necessary documents as required by the Surveyor from time to time. The contention of OP that complainant failed to provide certain invoices to substantiate the claim is baseless and contrary to facts. In this regard, an e-mail was received from the OP on 21.07.2017. Detailed reply with all the supporting documents was submitted by the complainant vide letter dated 21.07.2017 which was recorded by the branch office of OP at Bhillai on 24.07.2017. The OPs failed and neglected to pay even the loss assessed by Surveyor in full.

7. We have gone through various documents provided by the parties. Vide e-mail dated 22.08.2017. OP has conveyed to complainant that their claim is recommended for Rs.93,07,135/- subject to certain compliance listed in this mail, which are basically production of two invoices and 9 receipts. Vide its letter dated 05.09.2017, complainant sought calculation and working as to how the amount of Rs.93,07,135/- has been arrived at from the gross loss and loss as payable of Rs.1,40,69,211/- as assessed by the Surveyor. This was followed by a reminder letter dated 26.10.2017 from the complainant to OP. The requisite details were supplied by OP to complainant vide e-mail dated 01.11.2017 in the form of two sheets along with an internal communication dated 25.07.2017 from Head Office of OP to Regional Office Raipur of OP, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-

“In terms of the recommendation, the Competent Authority has approved the following:

1. Raipur RO may be authorized to settle the claim for Rs.93,07,135/- (Rupees Ninety three lacs Seven thousand One hundred Thirty five only) on Non Standard basis as well as applying 5% penalty for non disclosure of Vessel sailing date subject to verification of the invoices and incurrences which are as under for final proof of payment.

a)Point No. 17 & 19 - Invoice required.

b)Point no.18, 21, 22, 25, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44 & 45 Receipt for

expenses incurred.

2. The RO is also authorized for rectification in the policy regarding the endorsement mentioned under RO's note Recommendation (2nd Para).

3. For the sake of good order, the RO is requested to obtain a acceptance letter for the amount before making payment after compliance of point 1 and 2 above.

The Claim Calculation Sheet is enclosed.”

8. Based on above, an e-mail dated 22.08.2017 cited above was issued to the complainant. This e-mail dated 22.08.2017 was followed by an e-mail dated 22.09.2017 and letter dated 24.11.2017 from Bhillai office of OP to complainant, retreating its demand to provide 11 No. of Invoices/receipts. Complainant vide its e-mail dated 01.12.2017 informed the OP that since the admitted claim of Rs.93,07,135/- is not in agreement with their claim, they are seeking other legal options and that a legal notice dated 18.11.2017 has also been sent to OP. It was specifically stated in this communication that this is not a ‘No Claim’, but complainant is in disagreement with OP’s admitted claim amount. This led to issuance of e-mail dated 04.12.2017 from OP’s Bhillai office to complainant stating inter alia that compliances are still pending at complainant’s end, OP has presumed that complainant is not interested to get the claim settled, hence OP has closed their claim as ‘No Claim’.

9. Here it is important to note that OP has repeatedly stated in its correspondence cited above regarding non-compliance viz submission of 11 number of invoices/receipts. To this complainant has responded that detailed reply with all supporting documents were submitted by complainant vide letter dated 21.07.2017, received by branch office of OP at Bhillai on 24.07.2017. This document has been produced by the complainant alongwith their rejoinder. We have carefully gone through this reply dated 21.07.2017 from complainant to OP’s Bhillai office, which bears receipt stamp dated 24.07.2017 of Bhillai office of OP. In this communication dated 21.07.2017, complainant has given a detailed para wise response, covering inter alia queries raised in mail dated 21.07.2017 under various points. Copies of relevant Invoices/receipts etc. were also enclosed with this letter dated 21.07.2017 from complainant to OP. Hence, we find that contention of the OP that complainant did not do the compliances in terms of supply of 11 invoices/receipts as stated in this e-mail dated 22.08.2017 and subsequent communications is not correct and hence rejected. We find that complainant made all the compliances vide their letter dated 21.07.2017 cited. Hence, the action of OP in not accepting the claim of complainant on this ground is not valid. The contention of OPs that Section 64 UM(4) of Insurance Act, 1938 authorizes Insurance Company to settle the claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved Surveyor is untenable. The enabling provision of this section does not give arbitrary or unbridled powers to the insurance company. The use of powers under this Section has to be based on valid and sustainable reasons. In the present case, in view of the above discussion, the reasons for reducing the claim from the one assessed by the approved Surveyor are not found justified. The complainant has not challenged the loss assessed by the Surveyor. Hence, we find it a fit case to set aside the decision/communication dated 04.12.2017 of OP vide which OP has closed the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’. We find that complainant is entitled to have his claim as assessed by the Surveyor vide his report dated 05.01.2016 viz Rs.1,40,69,211/- , subject to only permissible deduction under the policy.

10. As regards OP’s contentions regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it involves disputed question of facts and require detailed evidence and NCDRC is not appropriate forum, Hon’ble Suprme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SC 635 observed that “….under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. .....legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground (that it involves complicated questions of fact)…... The Act provides sufficient safeguards. Regarding contention of the OP that complainant is a commercial organization carrying on business for profit and gain and hence not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, it was observed by this Commission in Harsolia Motors Vs. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 1 CPJ 27 (NC) observed that “an insured who takes the insurance policy cannot trade or carry on any commercial activity with regard to the insurance policy taken by him. Under Sec.3 of the Insurance Act, 1938, no person is permitted to carry on business of insurance unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Insurance Regularly and Development Authority.” “hiring of services of the Insurance Company by taking insurance policy by Complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils. There is no question of trading or carrying on commerce in insurance policies by the insured. May be that insurance coverage is taken for commercial activity carried out by the insured.”

11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Consumer Complaint is allowed/disposed off with the following directions/reliefs: -

OPs are directed to pay the claim to complainant as assessed by Surveyor viz Rs.1,40,69,211/- subject to only permissible deductions under the policy alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 18.04.2014 (six months from the date of incident) till the date of actual payment. In case complainant has got any claim/compensation from the supplier/any other sources with respect to loss in question with respect to loss in question, the same shall be liable to be deducted from the total amount payable to the complainant as per the order. Complainant shall file a requisite declaration on affidavit with the OP in this regard within 30 days of this order.

Payment under this order shall be paid by OPs within 60 days of this order.

OPs shall also pay a litigation cost of Rs.1.00 lakh to complainant.

Liability of OPs shall be joint and several.

In case complainant has taken any loan against the said machinery/items and some/any portion of the same is still outstanding, payments under this order shall be first used to satisfy such loan and balance shall be paid to complainant. Complainant shall produce a requisite declaration on affidavit/NOC from the Bank/Financial Institution in this regard before OPs within 30 days of this order.

12. The pending IAs, in any of the Consumer Complaints, if any, also stand disposed off.

Annexure-A
Brief Details of the Case
Sr No	Particulars	Dates
1	D/o Filing CC in NCDRC	16.02.2018
2	D/o Issue of Notice to OP(s)	06.03.2018
3	D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OPs	26.07.2018
4	D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant	05.12.2018
5	D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant	05.12.2018
6	D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OPs	16.05.2019
7	D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant	22.06.2022
8	D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OPs	22.06.2022


......................J
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
PRESIDING MEMBER


......................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
MEMBER

Thursday, December 22, 2022

Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolve the marriage

1 ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9894/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-06-2022 in CRLM No. 55501/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Patna)

ROHIT SINHA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)

(Mediation Report received on 19.11.2022 IA No. 132181/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 14-12-2022

These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kshatrshal Raj, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir,

AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Nityanand Singh, Adv. Ms. Chanchal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, Adv.

Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Justine George, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. During the pendency of the instant petition where the petitioner-husband is seeking for anticipatory bail, the matter was referred to mediation and the parties have now entered into a settlement. Through the Application (I.A. No. 182184 of 2022), the 2 settlement dated 15.11.2022 entered into between the parties has been brought on record. The settlement agreement dated 15.11.2022 is made part of this Order.

2. Among the other conditions agreed therein by the parties, one of the conditions was to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to respondent no.2 herein. The said amount has now been paid by the petitioner. In that light, the other terms of the settlement now become enforceable and operational.

3. In that view of the matter, we accept the settlement dated 15.11.2022 entered into between the parties. The proceedings:-

a. Information Petition No. 3817 of 2017 dated 15.12.2017 filed in the Court of CJM, Patna filed by the First Party against the Second party.

b. Senior Citizen’s Complaints Case filed by the mother of the petitioner against the Second Party bearing Suit No. 23/2017 before the SDM Patna Sadar.

c. Complaint Case No. 1049(C) of 2018, filed before CJM Patna under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Second party against the First Party.

d. Divorce Petition under Section 13(1) of the HMA 1955 filed by the First party against the Second party pending disposal before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna bearing No. 1324 of 2018.

e. Maintenance Case bearing No. 116 of 2019 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Second Party against the First Party pending before Additional Principle Judge, 3 shall stand quashed/closed.

The Courts concerned shall dispose of the proceedings. As a consequence of the settlement, and having noticed the various litigations between the parties, it is evident that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolve the marriage dated 03.07.2017 between the petitioner and respondent no.2, which we hereby order.

4. We also note that among the proceedings quashed above, one of the proceedings was initiated by the mother of the petitioner and since, she is also a party to the settlement, the terms would bind all the parties.

5. Accordingly, in terms thereof, the petition stands disposed of.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR?

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Selected for UPSC in 2012 and now finally order of appointment is made

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25341/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-05-2022

in WP(C) No. 5591/2021 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New

Delhi)

UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MACCHITA MALIK & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.161457/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.161458/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.161456/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS)

Date : 21-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.

Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.

Ms. Ayushi Nagar, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Arup Sinha, Adv.

Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Arun Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Aggarwal, Adv.

Nazish Fatima, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and considering the fact that earlier respondent No.1 did

clear the examination except the medical and nothing is on record

that communication dated 27.04.2013 was served upon respondent No.1

by which respondent No.1 was alleged to have been communicated to

appear before the Medical Board and in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, we direct that let respondent No.1

appear before the Medical Board and on the basis of the report of

the Medical Board, the case of respondent No.1 be considered for

appointment.

If the respondent is found to be medically fit, his case may

be considered for appointment, however, at the same time,

respondent No.1 shall be appointed from the date on which he is

found to be medically fit and he is actually appointed. Meaning

thereby, he shall not be entitled to any other benefits until he is

actually appointed.

The aforesaid order is passed considering the fact that for

the recruitment of 2012, he approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal in the year 2021 only.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of

three months from today.

With this, the present Special Leave Petition stands disposed

of.

Pending application stands disposed of.

(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Luxury Option not maintainable; complainant is entitled for delayed compensation @ 6% interest till the offer of possession: NCDRC


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 51 OF 2019

1. NEHA SOOD
At Present:- Flat No-1401, Dosti Ambrosia, Dosti Acres, Antop Hills, Wadala East,
Mumbai - 400037
Maharashtra

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED
(Through its Directors) R/o 306-308, 3rd Floor, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi - 110017

...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :

Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :

Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate

Dated : 17 Nov 2022

ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of Flat no. PGN-02-0806 in the project ‘Palm Gardens’, Sector-83, Gurgaon, (ii) pay Rs.7212562/- as compensation for delay in handing over possession, (iii) pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed compensation, (iv) pay pendent lite future interest @ 12% per annum, (v) pay Rs.100000/- as litigation cost and (vi) other relief which may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

3. The complainant has stated that the opposite party was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. In the year 2010, the opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of ‘Palm Gardens’ at Sector-83, Gurgaon. The complainant, who was in need of a house, booked a flat and deposited the booking amount on 06.10.2011. The opposite party issued an allotment letter dated 27.10.2011 allotting Unit no. PGN-02-0806 size 1900 sq. ft. for basic sale price of Rs.9310000/- and executed Buyers’ Agreement on 28.11.2011 in respect of the aforesaid unit. In Buyers’ Agreement, the basic sale price has been revised to Rs.9500000/-. The mode of payment was “construction linked payment plan”. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.11066735/- till 01.07.2017. As per clause 10(a) of the Agreement, possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with grace period of three months. Due date of possession expired in August 2015 but the opposite party neither completed the construction nor offered possession of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was filed for possession, delayed compensation etc. In IA/6601/2020, the complainant stated that the opposite party offered the luxury options namely (i) split air conditioners in all the rooms, (ii) modular kitchen with chimney and hob, (iii) imported marble in master bathroom & (iv) imported sanitary & CP fittings (Kohler or equivalent) and its charges were included in the basic sale price but it has not been provided. She prayed that the opposite party be directed either to provide the luxury options or to refund a sum of Rs.1235000/- towards it.

4. The opposite party filed its written reply and contested the matter. Material facts relating to the project, allotment of unit no. PGN-02-0806 size 1900 sq. ft. to the complainant and deposits made by her have not been disputed. However, it has been disputed that the luxury option was offered to the complainant due to mistake. It has been denied that its prices were included in the basic sale price. It has been stated that for force majeure circumstances, construction was delayed and could not be completed on due date as per the Agreement. In Affidavit of Evidence of Rajendra Prasad, the opposite party has stated that after obtaining the occupancy certificate on 17.10.2019, the complainant was offered possession vide letter dated 19.11.2019.

5. The complainant filed rejoinder reply and Affidavit of Evidence. Opposite party has also filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of admission/denial of documents of Rajendra Prasad. Both the parties filed short synopsis of arguments.

6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. In order to justify the claim of the luxury options, the counsel for the complainant, on the basis of the allotment to her mother of unit no. PGN-03-1504 submitted that her mother was charged for lesser rate of the land in the same project as she was not given luxury option. We have examined the allotment letters of both i.e. of the complainant and her mother. We find that the complainant was allotted the unit at the basic rate of Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. while her mother was allotted unit at the basic rate of Rs.5212/- per sq. ft. As such, the argument in this respect is not substantiated. Otherwise also, perusal of the slip pasted on the Agreement shows that it was merely an option and not a free offer. If any allotte opt for luxury option, he has to pay for it. No separate charges have been paid by the complainant for the luxury options. Therefore, claim for luxury options is not maintainable.

7. The counsel for the complainant submitted that as per clause-10 (a) of the agreement dated 28.11.2011, possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with grace period of three months and due date of possession expired in August 2015. The possession was offered on 19.11.2019. Relying upon judgment of three members Bench of this Commission in CC/423/2016 Altaf Ahmed Lal & Anr. Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & other connected matters, decided on 11.10.2021, in respect of the same project, he claimed delayed compensation in the form of interest @8% per annum on the deposits.

8. Section 71 of the Contract Act, 1872 prescribes for compensation for breach of the contact, which amounts to actual loss suffered by the party due to such breach. In the cases of delay in delivery of flat, the allottee is getting flat with appreciated value and loss is only of the rent. Supreme Court in Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited Vs. Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 699, R.V. Prasannakumaar & Ors. Vs. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Anr., (2020) 14 SCC 769 and Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana & Ors. Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that fair delayed compensation would be interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit. Although the judgment of this Commission is in respect of same project but it is not between the same parties. So for as binding precedent is concerned, judgment from Supreme Court has an overriding effect over contrary judgement of any other sub-ordinate court or tribunal. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on her deposit from due date of possession till the offer of possession.

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to hand over possession as per letter dated 19.11.2019 to the complainant within a period of six weeks. The opposite party shall also prepare a fresh statement of account in respect of delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit of the complainant, from September 2015 till 19.11.2019. If any amount is payable to the complainant, it shall also be paid within the same period. If any amount is payable by the complainant, she will pay it within one month of communication of statement of account. After completing the documentations, the opposite party shall execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within a period of one month, thereafter.


......................J
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
MEMBER

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Convenience of Parties and witnesses

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (Crl.) NO. 366 OF 2019

TESHI YAMI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CBI/ACB Respondent(s)

O R D E R

This Transfer Petition has been filed by the

petitioners for transfer of CBI Case No. 3 of 2019

(arising out of RC No. 4A of 2016/SHG) titled as CBI/ACB

vs. Teshi Yami & Ors. Pending before the Court of Special

Judge, CBI, Shillong, Meghalaya to the Court of Special

Judge, CBI/ACB, Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal

Pradesh.

The court is of the opinion that looking at the

number of witnesses (who reside in Arunachal Pradesh)

further having regard to the fact that most of other

witnesses do not reside within Meghalaya and also that a

large number of accused reside in Arunachal Pradesh, it

would be in the larger interest of justice that the

proceedings are transferred. Accordingly, CBI Case No.

3 of 2019 titled as CBI/ACB vs. Teshi Yami & Ors. pending

before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Shillong,

Meghalaya is hereby transferred to the Court of Special

Judge, CBI/ACB, Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal

Pradesh.

The Petitioners who are accused in the said case are

bound out to appear before the Special Judge, CBI /ACB,

Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh on 13th July 2020.

The transferee court shall secure the presence of

all the other accused and proceed further with the matter.

The transferor court shall forthwith transmit the

record of the aforesaid case to the transferee court.

Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed in the

above terms.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

.............................J.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

NEW DELHI

JUNE 01, 2020

ITEM NO.5 Virtual Court 7 SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 366/2019

TESHI YAMI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CBI/ACB Respondent(s)

Date : 01-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhatti, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the signed

order.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (RAJINDER KAUR)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)

Reservation in Jharkhand Higher Judicial Services

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.16 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13307/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-03-2019

in WP No. 48/2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)

DINESH CHOUDHARY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 85438/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 07-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jane, Adv.

Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR

Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the

order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand

at Ranchi in WP No. 48/2017.

The issue which arose for consideration in the said

Writ Petition was with regard to the claim of the petitioner

and certain other similarly placed persons seeking for

providing reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

and other Backward Classes in the recruitment to the Higher

Judicial Services in the State of Jharkhand.

In that light it was contended that the Notification

for recruitment was issued without providing for reservation

and was violative of the Reservation Policy of the State of

Jharkhand. Though several contentions were urged in the Writ

Petition, considering the fact that the Public Advertisement

No. 1/2017/Apptt. was already issued and as on such date the

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment

and Conditions of Service)Rule,2001 did not provide for

reservation, the High Court was of the view that no

interference in the process which had already commenced is

contemplated when as on the date of the advertisement there

was no provision for reservation in the Rules,2001. The High

Court accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, though

that be the position, subsequent recruitments have been made

and in future also the recruitments are to be made and

therefore the reservation is to be provided in terms of the

reservation policy of the State.

In that regard, learned counsel appearing for the High

Court has referred to the Objection Statement filed herein

indicating that Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide Minutes dated

29.01.2019 has constituted a special Committee of five Hon’ble

Judges to consider the matter for reservation in Jharkhand

Higher Judicial Services. It is also stated therein that that

the Committee had considered the matter in its meeting dated

29.07.2019 and had issued certain directions.

In that view it is indicated that the matter is under

active consideration before the High Court. The High Court

having taken note of this aspect and taking into consideration

the fact that steps have been taken by the High Court to

constitute a Committee and the matter is under due

consideration, we see no reason to pass any specific

directions in this petition.

We are confident that the High Court would take an

appropriate decision in accordance with law after securing the

recommendation from the Committee. It would also be open to

the petitioner to file appropriate representation before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice putting forth their grievances, if

any.

With the above observations, the Special Leave

Petition stands disposed of.

(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

After a long battle, 79 persons got employed

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 25749/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-03-2021

in WPCRC No. 267/2019 29-07-2022 in WPCRC No. 35/2022 passed by the

High Court At Calcutta)

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ALOK RANJAN ROY & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.119286/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.119288/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 23-09-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG

Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.

Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.

Mr. Sahil Monga, Adv.

Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Amit S., Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

The learned Additional Solicitor General has, today, placed

before us a communication sent by the Senior Divisional Personnel

Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah dated 22.09.2022, stating that

the competent authorities of railways have initiated the process to

employ 79 (seventy nine) applicants. It has further been stated

that the general medical fitness test would be completed by

14.10.2022 and final appointment order would be issued by

21.10.2022.

In continuity with the order dated 26.08.2022, we could only

observe that even if late, when the authorities concerned have

taken concrete steps for compliance, it may not be a case of

willful and deliberate disobedience on their part.

Having said so and having taken note of the submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, we would modify the impugned order

dated 29.07.2022 in the manner that the observations therein shall

not operate against the petitioners provided the process is

completed as contemplated by the communication dated 22.09.2022,

punctually and without fail. We would leave other aspects of the

matter open for consideration by the High Court in the pending

contempt petition.

A copy of the said communication dated 22.09.2022 may be

placed on record.

It goes without saying that the decision as taken by the

competent authorities in this matter had been in reference to the

peculiar circumstances of the case and orders earlier passed in the

matter.

Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition seeking

special leave to appeal stands disposed of.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SNEHA DAS) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

SC granted higher the rate of interest on enhanced compensation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8103 OF 2022

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5851 /2020)

SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

LILA RAM & ORS.

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the

appellants. The only ground of challenge in this

appeal filed by the claimant is that the High Court

while allowing enhancement of the compensation only

awarded 6% interest on the enhanced amount of

compensation though Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

(‘the tribunal’) has awarded 9% interest. Learned

Counsel for the appellants contends that there

appears to be no rationale in not awarding the same

interest which was awarded by the tribunal even on

the enhanced amount of compensation.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-

insurance company tried to justify the order by

saying that the High Court has rightly reduced the

rate of interest since the amount of compensation was

being enhanced.

We are not impressed by this submission made

on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent.

We do not find any justification for the High

Court to have reduced the interest component on the

enhanced amount of compensation only because of the

fact that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

was being enhanced by it.

In view of above, the part of the impugned

order passed by the High Court, awarding only 6%

interest on enhanced amount of compensation is set

aside and the appellants-claimants shall be entitled

for the payment of 9% interest on the total amount

payable as compensation.

The appeal accordingly, stands allowed to the

extent directed above.

…………………………………….J.

[KRISHNA MURARI]

…………………………………….J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI;

November, 2022

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.15 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5851/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2014

in FAO No. 875/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at

Chandigarh)

SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

LILA RAM & ORS. Respondent(s)

([MACT MATTER] )

Date : 03-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Nazish Fatima, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Gunjan sharma, Adv.

Mata Prashad Singh, Adv.

Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv.

Ms. Ranjana R. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Adv.

Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The order inter alia reads as under:-

“We are not impressed by this submission made

on behalf of the learned counsel for the

respondent.

We do not find any justification for the High

Court to have reduced the interest component on the

enhanced amount of compensation only because of the

fact that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

was being enhanced by it.

In view of above, the part of the impugned

order passed by the High Court, awarding only 6%

interest on enhanced amount of compensation is set

aside and the appellants-claimants shall be

entitled for the payment of 9% interest on the

total amount payable as compensation.”

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SONIA GULATI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)

Article 142 invoked and granted Divorce to the parties by mutual consent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1343 OF 2021

RINKI

PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR GAUD

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

We have learned counsel for the parties.

During the pendency of this transfer petition,

the parties have entered into a compromise and a

joint application has been filed with a prayer to

dissolve the marriage in exercise of the powers

conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of

India.

Further prayer has also been made to quash all

the pending proceedings, civil as well as criminal

mentioned in points (b) to (g) of the prayer clause

of the joint application.

Parties are present in person and have been

identified by their learned counsel. Affidavits filed

by them are also on record.

Considering the above facts and circumstances

exercising the powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, we hereby grant Divorce to the

parties by mutual consent. Various disputes civil as

well as criminal pending between the parties as

detailed in clause (b) to (g) of the prayer clause

also stand quashed. The parties henceforth, shall not

have any claim against each other whatsoever in

respect of the matrimonial dispute. The petitioner-

wife is present before us and has confirmed that she

has received the amount of 14 lakhs 50 thousand

towards full and final settlement between them as

agreed in the settlement.

With the aforesaid orders and directions, this

Transfer application stands disposed of. Let a decree

of divorce be drawn and the settlement agreement

shall be made part of the decree.

The transfer petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed

of.

…………………………………….J.

[KRISHNA MURARI]

…………………………………….J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI;

November, 2022

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.15 SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1343/2021

RINKI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR GAUD Respondent(s)

IA No. 56280/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 95367/2021 - STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 03-11-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR

Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Tomar, Adv.

Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.

Mr. Mohd. Hasibuddin, Adv.

Mrs. Manjulika Pal, Adv.

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anant Kumar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The transfer petition stands disposed of in terms of the

signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SONIA GULATI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed order is placed on the file)