BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Misc. Application No.: 34 of 2018

Date of Institution: 7.9.2018

Date of Decision: 20.4.2021 

Arora Registration Service,  through its Sole Proprietor, Kamal Kishore Arora, E-407, Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar 143001 (Pb.)

Applicant/Complainant

Versus

1. Courier Hub - M/s. Bhavya Enterprises
2. Overnite Express Ltd.
3. Fedex
4. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S.M. Road,  Mumbai 400037 through their Head/Officer Sh. Shakti Dhar Ojha alias S.D.Ojha (Opposite party No.4/Contemnor/respondent)

(Opposite party No.4/Contemnor/respondent)

Application under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Counsel for the parties 

For the  Complainant                         :  Sh. Gaurav Arora, Advocate

For the Opposite Party No.4              : Sh.Navjeewan Sharma,Advocate

Case  Law referred:-

1. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Prem Chandra Agarwal & Ors Vs. U.P. Financial Corp. and Ors (2009) 11 SCC 479
2. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Devi Ratan and Ors 2010(1) SCC 417
3. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  AIR 2003SC 4482.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case National Bal Bhawan and another Vs. Union of India 2003(9) SCC 671
5. State of Bihar & Others Vs. Rajendra Singh and another of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6356 of 2000 decided on 24.8.2004
6. Branch Manager Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Chanda Jaiswal  in Revision Petition No. 2167 of 2015 decided on 20.1.2020 of the Hon’ble National Commission .
7. ‘Ramesh G.Kohali Vs. Shivanand Shanbag   in  Appeal Execution No. 105 of 2019 decided on 9.1.2020 of the Hon’ble National Commission.
8.  Bhagwan Mishra Vs. Madhuri Devi decided on 19.9.2018,

COROM

Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President

Mr.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

ORDER:-

Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the Misc. application bearing No. 34 of 2018 filed by the applicant/complainant u/s 25 & 27  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 read with contempt of courts Act, 1971, for the execution/enforcement of the Interim-order dated 10.8.2018 and penalizing the contemnor/opposite party No.4 i.e. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S.M.Road, Mumbai.

Background facts

1.       briefly stated facts of this case are that complainant initially has filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein it is stated that “Arora Registration Service’ the complainant herein, is a sole proprietary firm involved in providing various and different varieties of legal advice, help, assistance and services for contesting/prosecuting for numerous varieties of legal rights of people and/or legal entities all around the country, since 1979 and Sh.  Kamal Kishore Arora , being the sole proprietor of the aforesaid complainant-firm (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) is duly empowered, competent and possesses all of the authority to sign, verify, affirm, declare sworn any statement/affidavit thereto. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant for the purpose of rendering its services to people and legal entitles has to accept and rely upon services offered by various different courier  companies and/or postal departments for the purposes of communication and/or fulfillment of various time bound duties/directions, as imposed by the relevant provisions of law and/or imparted by the judicial/quasi judicial authorities thereto. It is further averted in the complaint that  since the time immemorial , the postal/courier services are in existence and are meant for communications inter se the parties, and the society relies upon these services, being the proper, authentic and legalized mode of communication. It is also averted that society, inclusive of the complainant, considers postal/courier as the most appropriate ‘mode of communication’, even in the present regime of digitalization  and electronic communication. It is also averted that since many persons have jumped into this business every year and certainly there are various mal practices (viz overcharging, delayed delivery, non delivery, opened parcels, lost packages etc.) have been initialized in this aforesaid business. The complainant further averted that this present complaint is a perfect example of mal practice e prevalent in the business of courier industry and high lighted the mal practices in para A,B,C,D,E.F,G,H,I and J of para 6 of the main case giving different examples that on 23.7.2018 clerk of  complainant went to National Shopping  Complex to avail the courier services of Bluedart/Fedex for delivering the consignment comprising some documents within maximum period of 1-2 days to Mumbai  and the display board depicting that Fedex logo was there  which  openly depicting its association with the ‘Fedex’ and assured that the consignment will be reached by the evening of 24thy July, 2018. It is also averted  in para (C ) that there was a telephonic conversation  with opposite party No.1 and they assured that they are working with Fedex and the complainant got booked his consignment . Courier receipt Ex.C-1 was also issued in their favour. It is further averted that on 24.2.2018 when the complainant tried  to know the progress of his consignment , he could not find  it  on Fedex’s website rather surprisingly his consignment was booked with one ‘overnite company’  i.e. opposite party No.2 under a ‘priority’ service  and upon questioning this wrongful act  of misrepresentation, the opposite party initialized  to create excuses . Even in the evening of 24^th July 2018  when the delivery of the consignment was not completed, the complainant contacted opposite party No.1 who informed the complainant that due to some unknown reasons the consignment would not be delivered  but assured to deliver the same on 25^th July 2018. Again on 25^th July 2018  complainant contacted opposite party No.1 and instead  of giving reply to the complainant , they assured that the consignment will be delivered on 26^th July 2018 and thereafter on 26^th July 2018 it was stated that the consignment has been delivered and confirmed  that internet status has also been updated . On this complainant waited  for the opposite party No.4 to issue  the receipt of the documents contained in the consignment which was duty bound to issue. But opposite party No. 4 has not issued the receipt inspite of even lapse of all the working hours of 26.7.2018. It is further averred that on 27.7.2018 opposite party No.1 after various reminders and requests provided docket list to the  complainant depicting the delivery of the consignment  while claiming that the consignment was delivered on 26.7.2018 and since the receipt was not issued by opposite party No.4. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 were again contacted , who confirmed that the consignment has been delivered on 26.7.2018 to opposite party No.4. However on 31.7.2018 the consignment was received by the complainant from opposite party No.4 with a communiqué dated 27.7.2018 Ex.C-5 that the documents could not be entertained as it was received late  being time  barred. Then the complainant sought explanation from opposite parties No.1 & 2 .  With this background it is further averted  in the main complaint that due to callous acts and unfair trade practices , the complainant  has suffered a huge loss , injuries, harassment, mental agony and torment, solely at the hands of the opposite parties and on account of their unprofessional, unscrupulous and negligent conduct and with this brief facts he has filed  the complaint directing the opposite parties to indemnify the complainant upto the losses suffered and/or would be suffered by him on account of gross negligence, deficiency in service and also directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. Further directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to reimburse  the total amount incurred by the complainant for the delivery of the aforesaid consignment. Further directing  the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to provide satisfactory proof of their claims of delivery  of the consignment on 26.7.2018 and further directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to compensate the complainant for an amount of  Rs. 1,00,000/- and also seeking relief that consignment which was to be delivered upon opposite party No.4 on 26.7.2018 contrary to its allegations of receipt of the consignment on 27.7.2018 and it is alternatively directing opposite party No.4 to take on record the documents  and now returned to the complainant vide letter dated 27.7.2018 was prayed for.

2.       On the basis of this complaint all the parties were summoned . Written version by opposite party No.1 was filed in which it was submitted that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the replying opposite party since replying opposite party is only booking agent of opposite party No.2 and his liability is only to handover the parcels to opposite parties No.2 & 3 after its booking for its delivery at the point of destination. It was submitted that one person with a parcel came to opposite party No.1 for booking and its delivery to The Registrar of Trade marks, Mumbai  and he was told that the replying opposite party books international parcels for Fedex Courier and domestic parcels for Overnite Express Ltd and on his request the parcel was booked for Overnite Express Ltd on 23.7.2018. The consignor had not disclosed the contents of the parcel or its urgency to the replying opposite party . However, replying opposite party on the same date delivered the parcel to Overnite Express Ltd/opposite party No.2 in their office for its further delivery at its destination. It was denied that replying opposite party had given any alleged assurance/commitment of delivery of the alleged parcel by the evening of 24^th July 2018 to opposite party No.4. It was denied that replying opposite party had expressly informed the complainant that the progress of the delivery of the consignment could  be tracked through internet website of Fedex. The complainant was fully aware that he got booked his parcel from replying opposite party for Overnite Express Ltd and was fully aware that the replying opposite party only worked as book agent of the said courier service and is not running its own courier service. It was denied that complainant in the evening of 24^th July 2018 came to the premises of the replying opposite party and replying opposite party had given any alleged assurance for assured delivery on 25^th July 2018. It was denied that complainant at the time of handing over packet marked it as Priority service.  It was denied that on 25.7.2018 complainant again  contacted the replying  opposite party and he was given any alleged assurance of delivery of packet on 26.7.2018.  However, responsibility of the delivery of the packet at its destination was of opposite party No.2 because opposite party No.1 is only booking agent of opposite party No.2 and he delivered he packet of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 on the same date as in routine. However, the said packet of the complainant was delivered on 26.7.2018. It was denied that any alleged reminders and requests were received from the complainant. However, docket list for delivery of packet was delivered by opposite party No.2 to the complainant on his demand in which delivery is shown as on 26.7.2018. However, if any alleged document contained in the said packet were received back by the complainant that dispute is between the complainant and opposite party No.2. It was denied that on 31.7.2018 complainant sought any alleged explanation from the replying opposite party No.1  because he was fully aware that the opposite party No.1 has no liability for alleged late delivery of the packet.  The complainant at the time of booking of packet had neither disclosed its contents nor informed for any urgent need of delivery of packet before 26.7.2018 in the office of consignee.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       Opposite party No.2 also appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that opposite party No.1 is not the actual license holder of opposite party No.2 but is a private shop which deals in booking the couriers on commission basis. It was submitted that opposite party No.1 is not the branch office of opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.1 is private dealer which can be easily concluded from Ex.C-1 which is a receipt issue against the parcel. The receipt is a joint receipt since on the top right corner the names of all the companies are mentioned  and the name and service of  opposite party No.2 is not mentioned in that receipt , so this can easily be concluded that he is not their registered dealer, whereas AWB number of opposite party No.2 is mentioned by hand. Opposite party No.2 have three types of services which are available to the customers through which the parcel can be delivered in the terminology of opposite party No.2 there are three products namely (i) Overnite Priority (ii)  Overnite True 2 Time (iii) Ordinary mail service.  All the above three services varies as per the need of the customer. It is stated that the service product namely ‘Overnite Priority” ensures the next day delivery, the service “overnite true 2 time” ensures  the delivery but it is not the next day delivery service  , in this the delivery proof is provided, whereas the third is the  ordinary mailing service  which takes its due course and the delivery is made.  That the service of the product varies as there are many stations where the outreach is not possible even using the fastest means of communication, so in order to convey the transparency the complainant had a dedicated chart which the dealer have it and which is also available on its website that at which stations which service is available. The claims of the complainant as against the answering opposite party is fake as the service /product overnite priority is not available for the destination place. The proof is Ex.R-2 . As per chart it is specifically stated that only two services one is Overnite True 2 Time and other is Overnite Regular (ordinary) mailing service is available for destination pincode 400037. It is nowhere mentioned that delivery will be made the next day as the service available is only True 2 time which only ensures that the delivery will be made against the receipt. The service catalogue is Ex.R-3 for True 2 time . Ex.C-3 is the status of delivery. The booking type mentioned priority is wrongly mentioned  by opposite party No.1. Even for the sake of arguments Ex.C-3 is treated to be fine, then in that case, on the top left side corner it is mentioned that “Delivered to S on Thursday July 26, 2018” so the said parcel was delivered on 26.7.2018 whereas the submissions regarding Ex.C-5 is that the receiver might have opened it on 27.7.2018. Since the delivery is made on 26.7.2018 and against the said delivery signatures were taken that is also on 26.7.2018 i.e. Ex.C-4 . Opposite party No.2 cannot be held liable since the service available is true 2 time and ordinary mailing service for the destination and  which only promises that the delivery will be made against the receipt and the proof of receipt can be given as promised in the catalogue. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

4.       Opposite parties No.3 was proceeded ex-parte in the main complaint vide order dated 10.4.2019. Similarly opposite party No.4 was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.9.2018 but later on Sh. Navjeewan Sharma, Adv. appeared on behalf of opposite party No.4 and he was ordered to be permitted at that stage vide order dated 12.10.2018.

5.       During the pendency of  the main case an application for ad-interim  directions u/s 13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act was moved and vide order dated 10.8.2018  the following order was passed:-

          “Present : Sh.Gaurav Arora, Adv.counsel for the complainant

Heard. Complaint perused. Complainant is prima facie consumer of the opposite parties. This Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the present complaint. There are sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint further. Let notice of the complaint be issued to the opposite parties returnable for 7.9.2018.

Complainant alongwith complaint also filed attested affidavit of Kamal Kishore Arora  alongwith documents ex. C-1 to C-5.  Complainant also filed application u/s 13(3-B ) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions to the opposite party No.4 to take on record the documents of which the consignment in question comprised of and to returned to the complainant vide letter dated 27.7.2018 and not to proceed with the registration of a trade mark under application No.2723698 which has not yet been registered. After hearing the counsel for the complainant on the interim application, this Forum direct the opposite party No.4 to take on record the T.M.O.dated 23.7.2018 alongwith grounds of opposition and bank draft No.103458 dated 23.7.2018 of Punjab & Sind Bank amounting to Rs.3000/- as having returned to the complainant vide its letter dated 27.7.2018 and further to proceed with the trade mark application No. 2723698  thereto in accordance with law.

10.8.2018                                         Member        Member”

6.       It is submitted by the complainant that this order was not complied with by opposite party No.4 and ultimately the complainant had filed a Misc. application No. 34 of 2018 on 7.9.2018 submitting that opposite party No.4 was specifically directed to take on record the documents as mentioned in the order but the opposite party No.4 has not complied with the order inspite of the fact that opposite party No.4 was duly served in this case. The complainant has sent these documents to opposite party No.4 on 24.8.2018 vide regd. cover  and placed on record the postal receipt Annexure A-2 (colly). It is further averted that instead of complying the order of this Commission, on 28.8.2018 representative of the opposite party No.4  Sh.S.D. Ojha  started abusing them instead of making compliance of the order of this Commission and thus he has committed disobedience  of this  order passed by this Commission. This application was filed on 7.9.2018 and was adjourned from time to time for filing reply to this petition/application and due to covid conditions in the State of Punjab from 23.3.2020  onwards  the whole  of the State of Punjab was under curfew  and no effective work was done. Ultimately  opposite party No.4 had filed written reply only on 9.2.2021 raising preliminary objections that no relief has been passed against opposite party No.4 by this Commission while disposing the main complaint on 4.3.2020  and this application become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that on the sole ground of preliminary objections, this application should be dismissed.

7.       Both the parties have also filed written synopsis . The  complainant/applicant  relied upon the  law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as ‘Ramesh G.Kohali Vs. Shivanand Shanbag   in  Appeal Execution No. 105 of 2019 decided on 9.1.2020, Bhagwan Mishra Vs. Madhuri Devi dated 19.9.2018, Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Vs. Chanda Jaiswal  in Revision petition No. 2167 of 2015 decided on 20.1.2020 as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra  in Civil Appeal No. 6356 of 2000 decided on 24.8.2004.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  that every order is considered as final or decree , consequently the order dated 10.8.2018 would also be a final/decree and could be executed likewise a “final order” or as a ‘decree’ of the Civil  Court , thus , argued that the complaint has been finally though decided by the  District Commission, still the aforesaid order dated 10.8.2018 would remain executable as a final order or as a decree. It has further been alleged that since none of the opposite parties has ever raised any demur against the order dated 10.8.2018  when no such contention has ever been raised even at the time of final hearing of the case, thus the same has already attained ‘finality’ consequently the same deserves to be executed forthwith. The complainant has also rebutted the written reply submitted by opposite party No.4 qua the jurisdiction of this Commission. On merits it is vehemently submitted that since the opposite party No.4 has not complied with the interim directions issued by this commission, hence they are liable for penal action. In all paras of the written arguments  on preliminary objections and also on merits, the complainant has tried to made a good case for taking penal action against opposite party No.4 for the non compliance of interim order dated 10.8.2018. However, since this Commission has finally decided the main consumer complaint No. 596 of 2018 vide order dated 4.3.2020 , hence, it is relevant to reproduce operative para of the order for the proper adjudication of the case:-

      “In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to provide proof regarding the delivery of documents to opposite party No.4 on 26.7.2018. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.”

8.       From the record it is evident that the complainant vis-a vis opposite party No.4 has not tried to get the Misc. application decided with the main complaint earlier  and to decide the application on merits of the case in the interest of justice, the commission is of the considered view  that first of all the maintainability of the present misc. application must be weighed particularly when the main consumer complaint has been decided.  Hence, this Commission has carved out the following point for determination :-

(1) Whether the interim order passed during the pendency of the main case, cease to exists at the time when the main consumer complaint/case  is decided on merits or whether the Misc. application is maintainable, when main complaint is decided on merits.

9.       To determine this point legally the arguments of both the parties heard at length  and also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties.

10.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued before this commission that this application u/s 13(3-B) is separately be dealt particularly when this Commission has issued directions to opposite party No.4 to comply with the order of this  Commission and the provisions of section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act are very much applicable even in the execution of interim order and if anyone disobey the interim order , he is liable for the penal consequences. Ld.counsel for the complainant has relied upon State of Bihar & Others Vs. Rajendra Singh and another of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6356 of 2000 decided on 24.8.2004 wherein  the contempt of court-After having arrived at a conclusion that there was violation of court’s order, the court should have focused its attention to the issue as to what further was done consequentially-Instead it went on to give further direction for re-consideration in the line of view and specifically pointed out in para 6 of the judgement as follows:-

“If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of  the order cannot be urged in contempt  proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. xxxxx in other words, it cannot say what should not have done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.”

Similarly there is another judgement  Law Finder Document of the Hon’ble National Commission in case Branch Manager Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Chanda Jaiswal  in Revision Petition No. 2167 of 2015 decided on 20.1.2020 wherein it is held that if the compliance of the interim order is not made by the party concerned order to undo wrong  of violating interim protection has necessarily to be complied with. So far as its legal  proposition as submitted by the complainant is concerned  that is not disputed.  This Commission is of the considered view that the law cited by the Ld.counsel for the applicant /complainant is for the purpose of deciding Misc. application particularly when the main complaint is pending. The counsel for the complainant has failed to produce any of the judgement to assist this Commission regarding maintainability of the Misc. application when the main complaint is decided.

11.     In this regard  this Commission , as stated above, is not going to decide this matter on merits of the case rather the main crux is that when the main case is decided  whether the interim order exists or whether the same merge into the final order. Settled legal proposition is that once final order is decided on merits all the interim orders or directions issued also merged into the main case as it is clear from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Prem Chandra Agarwal & Ors Vs. U.P. Financial Corp. and Ors (2009) 11 SCC 479 wherein it has been held as under:-

1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40656 of 2007.
3. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that subsequently final judgement has been passed by the High Court on 25.8.2008  in the writ petition.
4. It is a well settled principle that once a final order is passed, all earlier interim orders merge into the final order and the interim orders cease to exist.
5. In this appeal, since the final order has been passed by the High Court, obviously all interim orders passed by the High Court in the same writ petition, cease to exist automatically. Consequently , any direction given in the interim order dated 24.4.2004 also ceases to exist.
6. In view of the final order passed by the High Court, the impugned interim order and any direction therein have ceased to exist. The appeal has become infructuous and is , accordingly, dismissed.”

There is another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Devi Ratan and Ors 2010(1) SCC 417 wherein it has been held as under:-

“Practice and procedure-Interim order-Merges with final order. xxxx No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition  had been filed. The maxim “Actus Curiae neminem gravabit”, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no-one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation  the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralized, as institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court.xxxxxxx”

Further reliance has been placed upon  South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  AIR 2003SC 4482 wherein it has been held in para 25 of the order as under:-

“xxxxxx The interim order passed by the court merges into a final decision. The validity of an interim order, passed in favour of a party, stands reversed in the event of final decision going against the party successful at the interim stage. Unless otherwise ordered  by the court, the successful party at the end would be justified with all expediency in demanding compensation and being placed in the same situation in which it would have been if the interim order would not have been passed against it.xxxxxxxx”

It is relevant to reproduce para 27 of the same judgement  that :-

“xxxxxx any opinion to the contrary would lead to unjust if not disastrous consequences. Litigation may turn into a fruitful industry. Though litigation is not gambling yet there is an element of chance in every litigation. Unscrupulous litigants may feel encouraged to approach the courts, persuading the court to pass interlocutory orders favourable to them by making out a prima facie case when the issues are yet to be heard  and determined on merits and if the concept of restitution is excluded from application to interim orders, then the litigant would stand to gain by swallowing the  benefits yielding out of the interim order even though the battle has been lost at the end. This cannot be countenanced, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the successful party finally held entitled to a relief assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated by award of interest at a suitable reasonable rate of the period  for which the interim order of the court withholding the release of money had remained in operation.xxxxxx”

Further reliance  has been placed upon of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case National Bal Bhawan and another Vs. Union of India 2003(9) SCC 671 wherein it has been held in para 4 of the judgement as under:-

“xxxxx It is no longer res integra that once a writ petition is finally disposed of by the High Court, any interim order passed  in pending writ petition merges with the final order. If the respondents were aggrieved by the interim order in terms of which the writ petition was disposed of , it was incumbent upon the respondents either to have amended the memo of appeal by challenging the final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court or ought to have preferred fresh letters patent appeal against the final order passed by the Single judge. In that view of the matter, the orders under challenge are set aside. However, we permit respondents 1 & 2 herein to move an application for amendment of the memo of appeal by challenging the final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court. In case such an application is filed, the High Court shall condone the delay in filing the amendment application. The appeal may be decided expeditiously. We may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. xxxxxxx”

12.     Since  the Consumer Disputes Redressal Authorities being bound by the principle of natural justice, equity and good concise  ought to consider and adopt such established principle of CPC as may be necessary for it to do complete justice, as such the law laid above (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present Misc. Application and this Commission is bound by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

13.     It is also very material to mention here that it is admitted  by the complainant during the course of arguments  that no appeal has been preferred by either of the parties against the final order of this Commission dated 4.3.2020 . As such the judgement/order dated 4.3.2020 passed in the main Consumer Complaint No. 596 of 2018 attain finality.

Conclusion:-

14.     So keeping in view, the  consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that once the main complaint/petition whatever the case may be , is decided, all interim orders passed during the pendency of the particular complaint/petition merge into the main final order as these interim orders are temporarily  passed after assessing the prima facie case of the particular applicant/complainant and it cannot take place of the main judgement/order rather it merged into the main judgement and cease to exist , the moment final order is passed  . In view of the above reasons this Commission find and hold  that no relief can be granted to the complainant/applicant in this Misc. Application. Hence, the present Misc. application is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. Misc. application file  and the main case file which was summoned are ordered to be consigned to the record room separately.

 Announced in Open Commission              (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra)                                                                                           President

Dated: 20.4.2021

                                                                                     (Jatinder Singh Pannu)                                                                                                   Member