COCP No. 3352 of 2012

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No. 3352 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of decision : 7.5.2013

Sunita Rani

.. Petitioner

versus

Ashok Yadav and others

.. Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:

Mr. R. K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 to 6.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

The present contempt petition was filed alleging non-

compliance of the order passed by this court on 19.2.2009 in CWP No. 9133

of 2008 which was disposed of in terms of order dated 22.5.2008 passed in

CWP No. 10483 of 2007.

In the aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to be paid `

1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the

date of rejection of the claim till realisation. The claim of the petitioner in

the present case was rejected on 19.7.2006. As the amount was not paid, the

present contempt petition was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to filing

of the present contempt petition, the petitioner had even got served a legal

notice on 2.7.2012, as prior to that ` 1,00,000/- had been paid but no

interest was paid. The same was responded to by stating that the petitioner

is not entitled to any interest. However, it was submitted that interest due to

the petitioner has now been paid.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6 submitted that

affidavit of respondent no. 4 has been filed stating therein that the order

passed by this court has been complied with. In fact, the judgment of this

court was challenged by the Insurance Company by filing Special Leave

COCP No. 3352 of 2012

2

Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court which was dismissed on

20.8.2010 and thereafter ` 1,00,000/- were paid to the petitioner on

20.5.2011. The amount of interest of ` 34,836/- were paid to the petitioner

on 3.1.2013 after deducting TDS on ` 43,545/-. For delay in compliance of

the order, unconditional apology has been tendered. However, there is no

justifiable explanation for reply to the legal notice in which it is stated that

the petitioner is not entitled to any interest even though this court while

disposing of the petition had granted interest @ 9% per annum to the

petitioner from the date of rejection of the claim till the payment of amount.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering

the fact that the order passed by this court on 19.2.2009 was complied with

only on 3.1.2013 when the amount of interest due to the petitioner was paid

and prior to that only principal amount was paid by the Insurance Company

of which the respondent no. 4 is the Senior Divisional Manager, even

though the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court on 20.8.2010, and also the stand taken in reply to the legal notice got

served by the petitioner where it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to

any interest despite there being directions of this court for payment of

interest to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4- Senior Divisional Manager,

Chandigarh, is burdened with costs of ` 10,000/-. The amount of costs shall

be paid to the petitioner by way of bank draft within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Disposed of.

7.5.2013

(Rajesh Bindal)

vs

Judge