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