DATE OF FILING: 13.12.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.09.2016.
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
The DHr has filed this Execution Application on 3.12.2014 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987(for short C.P. Act, 1986) and subsequently also filed a petition on 25.11.2014 against the JDr Nos. 2 & 3 with a prayer to impose penalty of Rs.20,000/- and to issue a fresh draft of Rs.5280/- as per the order dated 18.3.2013 of this Forum. As per the said order, the JDrs were directed to refund the cost of Rs.4,280/- of the Micromax mobile phone to the DHr/complainant along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation, mental agony and cost of the litigation. In sum total, the JDrs were directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,280/-. Accordingly the JDrs prepared a draft bearing No.723144 dated 5.7.2013 for Rs.5280/- in favour of the DHr. However, while preparing the draft the name of the DHr was wrongly mentioned as Suvedarani Nayak instead of Suvadarani Nayak hence the DHr declined to receive the said draft from this Forum. So, this Forum hearing from the parties and after going through the show cause reply of JDrs in its order dated 3.2.2016 directed the JDrs No.2 & 3 to correct the name of the DHr in the draft. The JDrs were also directed in the said order to submit the new draft amounting to Rs.5,280/- before this Forum in the name of the DHr. Subsequently, the JDrs prepared a fresh draft in the name of DHr bearing No.042548 dated 19.3.2016 and submitted before this Forum. The said draft received the DHr, Suvada Rani Nayak on 26.4.2016 with due acknowledgement letter placed in the case record. However, she further redressed her grievance before this Forum for imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the JDrs contending delay payment by them vide in her petition dated 25.11.2014. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the DHr also orally submitted and redressed his grievance before this Forum on 6.1.2016 and prayed to impose Rs.20,000/- towards penalty for delayed compliance of the order of this Forum.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the DHr as discussed above and perused the materials on the case record and have gone through the vital documents placed on it. On perusal, it reveals that the DHr has received her decretal amount of Rs.5280/- in compliance of the order of this Forum dated 18.3.2013. We also while perusing the documents found that the DHr has claimed Rs.20,000/- towards penalty to impose on the JDRs for harassment and delayed payment by filing a petition on 25.11.2014. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the DHr has received her decretal amount as per order of this Forum. However, the prayer for imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000/- is yet to be decided by this Forum. The only point to be decided by this Forum as per facts and circumstance of this E.A. whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to impose penalty of Rs.20,000/- in this case?.
3. To address this only question, we would like to say at the outset that due to error, the name of the DHr in the original order was wrongly mentioned and the JDrs accordingly prepared the draft in favour of the DHr on 5.7.2013 but subsequently by an order of this Forum on 3.2.2016 prepared a fresh draft bearing No.042548 dated 19.3.2016 which was also received by the DHr on 26.4.2016. Secondly, with regard to impose of penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the JDrs, we would like to say that since the delay was not intentional and the name of the DHr in the original order was inadvertently mentioned by the office, so for this unintentional typographical error of the Forum, the JDrs can’t be penalized. Moreover, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to impose penalty of Rs.20,000/- going beyond the decree/order dated 18.3.2013. In our considered view, no Forum can impose any penalty going beyond the decree. In this regard we would like to cite the authority of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sri Sunil Rastogi vs. M/s Jagpur Security Ltd through its Director and Others reported in 2015(1) CPR 549 (NC) where it was held that “executing court can’t go beyond decree”. In the light of the above discussion and decision of Hon’ble National Commission, we can’t go beyond the decree i.e. original order dated 18.3.2013 of this Forum and in our considered view the petition dated 24.11.2015 of the DHr for imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the JDrs deserves no consideration hence bears no merit and rejected.
4. In the result, the petition of the DHr dated 24.11.2015 for imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- is dismissed due to devoid of any merits and since there is no other prayer in this Execution Application of the DHr since he has received her decretal amount duly acknowledged by her as discussed above, the Execution Application of the DHr is disposed of on merits. The parties are directed to bear their own cost.
5. The order is pronounced on this 26th day of September 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copies of this order to the parties free of cost.
