BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1253/2009 against  E.A. 5/2009  in C.C. 409/2005,   

Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad 

Between:

N. Surendera Sai,

R/o. Flat No. 401,

Paramount Towers,

11-5-451, Red Hills

Hyderabad-500 004.                                   ***                         Appellant/DHr

                                                                                                Complainant                                                                            And

1)  The Chief Post Master General

Dak Sadan, A.P. Circle

Abids, Hyderabad.

2)  The  Post Master,

Tenali Head Office

Tenali- 522 201.

3)  The Sub-Poster Tenali Bazar

Tenali-522 201.                                           ***                         Respondents/      

                                                                                                Opposite Parties  

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. N. Ramakrishna Paramahasa

Counsel for the Resp:                                  Mr. V. Vinod Kumar  

CORAM:

                         HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

                                                             &

  SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                                    ***

1)                This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum  terminating  E.A. 5/2009  in C.D. 409/2005 holding that  the respondent had  complied the orders.

2)                The complainant alleges  that the respondent postal department was  directed to pay Rs. 22,530/-  with interest @ 12% p.a., from 17.5.2001 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.    The appeal preferred  by the respondents was dismissed confirming the order of the Dist. Forum.    On that the respondents sent a cheque  for Rs. 20,350/-.    Since the said amount was not towards the entire amount due under the order and in fact he had to get about Rs. 30,712/-  he filed E.A. 5/2009  u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act  for  issuance of a certificate  to the Dist. Collector  for collecting the said amount.    Despite calculation memo was  filed  observing that an amount of  Rs. 20,350/- was withdrawn  and an amount of Rs. 19,637/-  was deposited before the State Commission, no amount remained to be paid and consequently terminated the said proceedings.

3)                Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred the appeal contending that still an amount of Rs. 30, 712/-  is payable by the respondents and despite a calculation memo is filed  the Dist. Forum did not consider  and erroneously terminated the E.A. 5/2009.     Therefore  he prayed that  order be set-aside  and direct the respondents either to pay  or issue certificate as contemplated u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act.

4)                Learned counsel for the respondent contended that an amount of Rs. 20,350/-  by way of cheque and an amount of Rs. 19,637/-  was deposited before this Commission towards compliance of order and the Dist. Forum  has rightly terminated the proceedings.

5)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation  of fact or law?

6)                At the outset we may state that  on the complaint filed by the complainant against the respondents the Dist. Forum directed to pay  Rs. 22,530/-  with interest @ 12% p.a., from 17.5.2001 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- by order dt. 28.9.2005  The respondents preferred F.A. 1779/2005 and it was dismissed by this Commission on 21.4.2006.  When the said order was not complied  the complainant filed  P.P. No. 101/2006.  The Dist. Forum issued NBW for  payment of amount.  In   F.A. No .1028/2006  this Commission by its order dt. 26.11.2006  after taking into consideration that the  appeal has been filed on penalty proceedings  and the order in C.D. has become final,  and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants/ respondents herein  have deposited    an account payee cheque for Rs. 20,350/- drawn in favour of complainant directed the respondents  to pay balance of amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of order.  It has also taken cognizance of  Writ Petition  filed by the respondent postal department  against the  order.

7)                 The learned counsel  represented that  W.P. No. 17768/2006  filed to quash  the order was dismissed  on 15.11.2006.    Now the deposit  that said to have been made  before this Commission for an amount of Rs. 19,637/- is also taken into account  they had complied the order.  

8)                Despite the fact that this Commission directed the  appellant/complainant  to withdraw statutory amount  in FAIA No. 2790/2005 without  furnishing  security on  1. 2. 2006  the complainant did not choose to  withdraw the same.    Undoubtedly even now the complainant is entitled to withdraw the  said amount.    The respondent cannot be found fault  if the complainant had not withdrawn the amount as directed by this Commission in  FAIA No. 2790/2005.    After deducting this amount  on the date on which order was passed  dt. 1.2.2006  and then calculate whatever  interest he was entitled to on the balance of amount.    The respondents cannot be found fault  if the complainant failed to withdraw the amount despite order of this Commission.   The complainant was  directed to file a calculation memo  with interest  @ 12% p.a.,  on Rs. 22,530/- from 17.5.2001 to 1.2.2006.  Evidently the respondents were liable to pay Rs. 38,161/-  as on  1. 2. 2006.

9)                The complainant is entitled to balance of amount  with interest @ 12% p.a., from the said date till the date of payment.  Equally the complainant  is  unjust in not withdrawing the amount  deposited  solely on the ground that  the  order in  FAIA No. 2790/2005  in FA No. 1779/2005 dt. 1.2.2006 to withdraw the amount would automatically by operation of  Regulation 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005  that any  ex-parte  interim  order  passed  by  the  Consumer Forum shall  stand vacated  after expiry of 45 days  from the date of the said order.    We are unable to appreciate this contention  By virtue of  Section 17 of the  Consumer Protection Regulations stipulates “Any ex-parte interim order issued by the Consumer Forum shall stand vacated after 45 days if in the meanwhile the objections to the interim order are not heard and disposed of.”   The order that was passed by this Commission was never vacated in the sense till  appeal has been disposed of,  the interim order has  been in force.    The direction was that the complainant  was entitled to withdraw the statutory deposit without furnishing any security.    When a favourable order was passed in favour of the complainant  he cannot contend that the interim order deemed to have been vacated on expiry of  three months period,  and therefore  he could not withdraw the amount.      Even  now it is not  too late a day to withdraw the said amount.    However, the complainant is entitled to interest after deducting  the statutory deposit.     Knowing full well that he was permitted to withdraw  if he does not withdraw it cannot be taken against the respondents.   Though several decisions were relied  by the complainant, we do not see any relevancy of those decisions to the dispute on hand.    

9)                As per various orders the calculation would be as under ;

Therefore the  respondent  postal department has complied the order.  As can be seen from the above calculation  no  extra amount need be paid.  If we may say so, an amount of  Rs. 401/-  has been  in excess paid.    In view of the fact that  it is a paltry amount,   we are of the  opinion  that the complainant is not entitled to any more amount.    The Dist. Forum is justified  in terminating the execution proceedings.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

10)               In the result the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  15. 02.  2011.

*pnr