Details	DD	MM	YY
Date of Judgment	10	06	2022
Date of filing	28	09	2021
Duration	09	04	02

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD Execution Application NO. 2020/01 Court No. 1 Parag Girishbhai Desai, E/401, Rajshree Enclave, Shreyas Tekra, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015.

Vs.

1. Dr. Ashokbhai C. Shah, A9/10, Mangaltirth Complex, Nr. Dharnidhar Society, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., DO II, Nanalal Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

Coram : Hon‟ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President Ms. A. C. Raval, Member Order: (By Hon‟ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President) 01.06.2022

1. The applicant has filed the Execution application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein referred to as „the Act‟), wherein, the main relief is prayed in term of para 7 which reads as under:

“The Hon’ble this commission may be pleased to issue notice under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in case default still continues may please pass appropriate orders for sentencing imprisonment and penalty to erring officers of the respondent insurer and Dr. Ashok Shah.

Any other and further order which may be deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of this case please be passed and oblige.”

2. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. S. S. Parekh, for the applicant and Ld. Advocate Mr. Nilay Dave for the opponent no. 1 and Ld. Advocate Mr. Rituraaj Meena for the opponent no. 2. Perused the application and record of case.

2.1 The present applicant is the original complainant and opponent no. 1 is original opponent 1 and opponent no, 2 is original opponent no. 2. Herein after the applicant and opponents will be referred as per their original status.

Facts of the compliant:

3. The present application is the original complainant who has filed the consumer complaint no. 92/2001 before this Commission against the opponent to pay the compensation on account of negligence in providing medical service. This Commission has partly allow the compliant on 18.4.2012 and opponent were directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for 9% interest p.a. and cost of Rs. 5000/-. It is further submitted that in the application that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by this Commission in C.C. no.92/2001 the complianant has preferred an appeal no. 293/2012 for enhancement the awarded amount. Opponent no. 2 has also preferred appeal no. 425/2012 before the National Commission against the order passed by this Commission. That the appeal filed by the opponent no. 2 insurance company was dismissed where as the appeal filed by the present applicant was allow and enhanced the amount of compensation Rs. 3,00,000/- to 8,00,000/- and awarded cost of Rs. 25,000/- vide order dated on 14.5.2019.

3.1 It is further stated that the opponents were liable to pay Rs. 21,37,904/-. During the telephonic discussion it was came to that opponent no. 2 insurance company has deducted TDS wrongly from, the awarded interest applying wrong interpretation of the provision of the income tax Act regarding payment of interest in deposit. That the applicant made clear that the amount awarded by the National Commission cannot be treated as income therefore it is not subject to tax. However the respondent insurance company‟s officers just to harass the applicant deducted TDS wrongly and paid less amount of Rs. 1,30,290/-.

3.2 That the applicant has made representation to the opponent insurer to return the TDS deducted. The applicant has also drawn the attention of judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court wherein it is held no TDS amount is required to be deducted from the amount of compensation. That the applicant has consulted Charted Accountant who has advised that he has to suffer loss for getting refund of TDS amount from the Income Tax Authority. Therefore the applicant has filed the present application to punish the officer of insurance company under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Procedure ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document