OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBER .
Execution Application No. 08 of 2014
Date of Filling : - 02.07.2014.
Date of Order :- 22 .07.2017.
Kiran Modi,W/O.Sajan Ku Modi,Prop.M/S.Amit
Traders,At-Sankar Cinema Road,P.O/ Dist.Angul.
_________________________Petitioner/DHr.
Vrs.
Chief Manager,State Bank of India,
Angul Main Branch,Angul,P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul.
________________________ Opp. Party/JDr.
For the complainant :- Sri B.C.Pradhan & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party :- Sri U.S.Mishra (Adv.)
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri D. C. Mishra, President.
The DHr who was complainant in C.C.Case No. 122 of 2019 of this forum has filed this execution application U/s. 27 of C.P.Act with prayer to punish the JDr (Opp.party in C.C.Case No.122 of 2010) on the grounds stated there in.
2. The case of the DHr/Petitioner runs thus:-
That he had filed the C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010 against the present opp.party and in that case this forum had directed the opp.party(JDr) “to make sincere and diligent effort to trace out the original mortgaged documents and handover the same to the complainant and issue a no claim certificate indicating full and final clearance of loan to the complainant within one month from date of this order”.
According to the DHr/Petitioner the opp.party/JDr was to refund the original R.O.R of the guarantor vide Khata No. 155/74,Plot No. 972 & 973 covering a total are of Ac.0.58 decimals of Mouza – Tentoloi and original LIC policy bond of the DHr/Petitioner vide policy No. 580597643 dt.21.09.1992 and to issue no claim certificate indicating full and final clearance of loan account No. 01660060248 within one month of the order i.e from 22.11.2011 but till today the opp.party/JDr has not complied the same. So he has filed this case ,seeking reliefs already stated above in Para-1.
3. The opp.party/JDr has filed written show cause and contested the case with prayer to dismiss it with cost on the grounds that the case has been filed long after the limitation period, for which it is not maintainable and that the no due certificate was already issued to DHr/Petitioner before passing of order in C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010 and that after disposal of the C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010 the DHr/Petitioner has already taken the lost documents from the bank.
4. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties the main issues that arise in this case are as follows:-
:I S S U E S:
- Whether the Execution Application is maintainable or barred by limitation?
- Whether the opp.party/JDr has violated the order passed by this forum and failed or omitted to comply the order passed by this forum in C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010?
- Whether the penalty can be imposed U/s. 27 of C.P.Act?
Issue No.(i):- The order was passed in C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010 on 22.11.2011 and this Execution Application has been filed on 2.7.2014. Section-14(1) (iv) of Consumer Protection Regulations,2005 is as follows:-
“The period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act, the rules of these regulations shall be thirty days from the date of cause of action or the date of knowledge”.
As per the above provision the application can be filed from the date of knowledge. The DHr/Petitioner specifically submitted that he did not know the result of C.C.Case No.122 of 2010 and only after getting the certified copy on 24.6.2014 the fact came to his knowledge and immediately he has filed this case. Verified the original C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010 and also ascertained from the office that prior to 24.6.2014 the DHr/Petitioner did not receive the copy of the judgement. Thus, the result of C.C.No. 122 of 2010 came to the knowledge of the DHr/Petitioner on 24.6.2014 and the case has been filed within 30(thirty) days of his knowledge. The DHr/Petitioner has relied on a decision reported in “2008(1) CPR 199(NC) –Prem Chandra Varshney Vrs. Murarilal Sharma and Ors”,where in it has been held that :-
“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 25 and 27 r/w Clause (iv) of Regulation 14(1)-Award of For a-Execution-Conviction-Regulation 14(1)(iv) providing for limitation of 30 days for any application for which no period of limitation was specified in the Act would not apply to execution proceedings-Act did not provide for any limitation for filing execution application-Execution filed on 21.11.2005 of the award passed by State Commission on 20.11.2001 was not barred by time”.
Thus, as per the above discussion, this issue is answered in favour of the DHr/Petitioner and it is held that the application has not been filed after limitation period.
Issue No.(ii):- The DHr/Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that till 25.7.2016 the opp.party/JDr did not comply the direction of this forum passed in C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010 . From the show cause filed by the opp.party/JDr it is clear that the order has not been complied. Though the JDr/opp.party is taking the plea that the documents were lost during shifting of the bank building but with such clue he can not escape from complying the direction. No proof has been produced from opp.party/JDr side that he has complied the direction of this forum and given the original documents to the DHr/Petitioner. So it is clear that the opp.party/JDr has violated, omitted and failed to comply with the order of this forum passed in C.C.Case No. 122 of 2010.
Issue No.(iii):- In view of the above discussion made in issue No.(i) & (ii), the opp.party/JDr is liable to be punished U/s. 27 of C.P.Act.
5. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences (violation) and the inconvenience caused by the opp.party/JDr, this forum is driven to conclusion that awarding only fine (punishment) will be just and proper in this circumstances.
6. Since only fine punishment is to be awarded, hearing the opp.party/JDr on the question of sentence is not necessary .Considering all the facts and circumstances this forum is driven to conclusion that punishing or sentencing the opp.party/JDr to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 (Ten Thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months will meet the ends of justice.
7. Hence order:-
: O R D E R:
The opp.party/JDr is directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) within one month of this order, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
If fine will be realized, 50% i.e Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) will be paid to the petitioner towards the suffering he sustained due to non-compliance of the order by the opp.party/JDr.
Order delivered in the open forum
today the 22nd July2017 with
hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
President .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sri K.K.Mohanty), (Smt.S. Mallick),
Member. Member.
