IMPORTANT POINT
Since day amount is deposited with consumer forum, liability of depositor in respect of that amount for interest purposes becomes freezed.

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—The appellant has filed the aforesaid Appeal against the order dated 11.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in EA No.9 of 2013 in Complaint Case No.SC/6/0/2007 Oriental Rubber Works Vs. Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The State Commission in its impugned Execution order dated 11.03.2015 has ordered that in view of order dated 28.11.2008 of the State Commission, the appellant is liable to pay interest @ 10 p.a. for the period of 28.01.2009 to 06.07.2013 on Rs. 33,91,954.

2. Brief facts are that M/s. Orient Rubber filed a complaint bearing complaint case No.SC/6/2007 before the State Commission West Bengal, against the Appellant. The State Commission, vide its order dated 28.11.2008 held the appellant liable to pay the complainant (Respondent in the Appeal) the amount assessed by Surveyor against insurance policy, Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs within two months from the date of order. In case of failure to comply with direction, the complainant shall be entitled to recover the entire amount in accordance with law along with interest @ 10% p.a.

3. The appellant filed First Appeal No.23 of 2009 before the National Commission. The Commission vide its order dated 27.1.2009 stayed the operation of impugned order dated 28.11.2008 of State Commission subject to appellants depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the State Commission. The appellant in compliance with the order dated 27.1.2009 of the National Commission deposited a sum of Rs.16,95,977/- vide cheque No.152699 dated 16.02.2009 with the State Commission towards the 50% of awarded amount.

4. The National Commission vide its order dated 7.05.2013 upheld the order of State Commission and dismissed the appeal. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.3.2014 in EA No.9/2013 directed the appellant to pay Rs.33,91,954/- with interest to the respondent. The appellant filed Appeal Execution No.06/2014 before the National Commission against the order dated 28.03.2014 in EA/9/2013 in SC/6/0/2 of the State Commission. The National Commission in its order dated 20.05.2014 in Appeal Execution No.06/2014 has directed that:

“14. It is an admitted fact that appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.16,95,977/- with the State Commission, in terms of order dated 27.1.2009 passed by this Commission. Accordingly, we direct the appellant/Insurance Company to comply with order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the State Commission forthwith. However, appellant shall get adjustment for the sum of Rs.16,95,977/- already deposited by it, with the State Commission on 16.2.2009.

15. With these observations, the impugned order stand modified to this extent and present appeal stand disposed of accordingly.”

5. The respondent filed Appeal Execution No.4/2014 which has been disposed of by the impugned order by the State Commission. Appellant’s grievance is that the State Commission in its impugned order has not adjusted the sum of Rs.16,95,977/- (50% of the awarded amount) against the total awarded amount and as such has grossly violated the order of National Commission dated 20.05.2014 while passing the impugned order.

6. Hence the present appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that inspite of National Commission’s order dated 20.5.2014, adjustment of Rs.16,95,977/- in the final payment has not been done and the State Commission in its impugned order dated 11.03.2015 has not considered this direction. The appellant had already deposited Rs.16,95,977/- with the State Commission on 16.02.2009 vide order dated 27.1.2009. The respondent was free to withdraw this amount as it was clearly mentioned in the order dated 27.1.2009 of the National Commission. Once appellant has deposited an amount with the State Commission, the same has gone out of the pocket of the appellant and respondent should have withdrawn that amount. I