NCDRC

NCDRC

ERP/12/2014

MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK GIRI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANAND SHARKAR JHA & MS. BHAVANA JHA

21 Mar 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
EXECUTION REVISION PETITION NO. 12 OF 2014
 
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2014 in Appeal No. 72/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD.
BACHAWAT HOUSE, 2 UPPER WORD STREET.
KOLKATA - 700017
W.B
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ASHOK GIRI
S/O LATE RAMESH CHANDRA GIRI, VILLAGE MANDUR, P.O & P.S RAMNAGAR, PURBA RAMNAGAR, PURBA MEDINIPUR,
PURBA MEDINIPUR
W.B
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Anand Shankar Jha
For the Respondent :

Dated : 21 Mar 2014
ORDER

PER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The Counsel for the Petitioner present. 2. The District Forum vide its order dated 12.01.2010 passed the following order: hat this case be allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to release and handover the truck in question to the Petitioner within 30(thirty)days from the date issue of this order along with the seized papers, pertaining to the truck and to accept the payment of rest of the loan amount from the Petitioner. 3. During the Pendency of the execution proceedings the Petitioner moved an application before the District Forum, the District Forum passed the following order: oth the parties file hazira. Today is the date fixed for hearing of the petition dt. 06/06/2013 filed by the OP/JDr seeking an alternative order dtd. 12/01/2010 passed by this Forum on the ground that, the vehicle/truck in question was sold on 07/04/2009 prior to the date of the final order. Today is also fixed for hearing of the petition dtd. 26/06/2013 filed by the Complainant DHr praying for issuance of warrant of arrest against the OP JDr for non-compliance of the final order passed on 12/01/2010, which has been affirmed by the Honle State Commission in F.A. Case No. FA/256/2012 passed on 04/03/2013. Heard both sides. Seen the above two petitions. It is important to note that this forum has no power to recall or alter or revive its own order already passed on 12/01/2010 as sought for by the OP/JDr. Hence, the petition dtd. 06/06/2013 filed by the OP/JDr to alter the order of this forum passed on 12/01/2010, is rejected. Admittedly, the OP/JDr has not complied with the final order passed on 12/01/2010 of this forum. In the application dtd. 26/06/2013 filed by the Complainant DHr praying for issuance of warrant of arrest against the OP JDr for non-compliance of the final order, the address of the OP JDr differs from the address written in the original complaint petition and also P.S. name is not mentioned in this petition. So, at this stage, the petition dt. 26/06/2013 filed by the Complainant DHr is rejected. Complainant/DHr is directed to take necessary steps, if any, by 11/11/2013. 4. It must be borne in mind that the Petitioner was not entitled to move an application for amendment of the decree. It is well settled that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The Counsel for the Petitioner himself stated that the vehicle was sold in 2009. It was his bounden duty to bring this fact before the District Forum. 5. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner vide order dated 16.01.2014. The relevant para runs as follows: This order related to the hearing on admission. This is an appeal u/s 27A of the C. P. Act with delay of 41 days in filing this appeal. The Complaint case bearing no. 11 of 2009 was disposed of by the Learned District Forum, Purba Medinipur on 12/01/10. The FA 256 of 2012 was filed with the petition for condonation of delay of 850 days in filing this appeal. The first appeal 256 of 2012 was dismissed being time barred. The execution case no.2/2011 was filed by the Complainant before the Learned District Forum wherein the Appellant/JDr appeared. Since the appeal was dismissed being time barred the order passed by the Learned District Forum attained finality and at this stage the present appeal preferred by the Appellant/Jdr U/s 27A of the C.P. Act cannot be admitted. The appeal u/s 27A of the C. P. Act is dismissed being not admitted. 6. It is well settled that the decree cannot be changed. However, there lies no rub, in executing the decree as ordered by the District Forum, the District Forum can compel the JDr to execute the decree as per law, otherwise, it can take coercive methods. 7. The Counsel for the Petitioner has made a suggestion that he is ready to pay amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle which was sold, after reducing the dues which was to be deposited by the Complainant. This is for the execution Court to consider the same. There is no bar to the compromise. 8. Coercive methods shall not be taken till the next one month. 9. Orders be given as Dasti, as prayed on 24.03.2014.

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.