This revision is directed against the order dated 14/12/2018 passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri in execution case no. 4/S/2014 which arises in connection with CC/105/S/2009. The case in short is that the revisionist as complainant obtained an award from the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri in connection with CC/105/S/2009 by which the Ld. Forum, Siliguri has directed the Opposite party Dr. S. R. Sengupta to pay Rs. 12,10,000/-. The said order was challenged by the OP of that case before the Hon’ble State Commission, Kolkata Bench where the appeal was dismissed and the order of Ld. Forum become affirmed. Thereafter, the complainant/decree holder put the award into execution and in execution case, the judgment debtor that is the OP of the consumer complaint paid Rs. 12,21,000/- by demand draft on 20/06/2017. Thereafter, the DHr filed a petition before the Ld. Forum on 10/06/2017 with a prayer to direct the JDr to pay Rs. 3,86,145/- as interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum over the decretal amount which has accrued since the date of final order of the Ld. Forum. The said petition was placed for hearing before the Ld. Forum on 14/12/2018. On that date, after hearing both sides Ld. Forum has rejected the said petition.         

            Being aggrieved with the said order this revision follows on the ground that the revisionist was entitled to get the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum which was to be carried out over the decretal amount of Rs. 12,10,000/- after 45 days from the date of passing order and that amount has not yet paid by the JDr and for that reason, the revisionist was well entitled to get the said amount to be calculated as 3,86,145/-. But Ld. Forum has failed to understand the said legal right of the decree holder and for that reason, the order of Ld. Forum is liable to be set aside. The revision was admitted on its own merit and the OP Dr. S. R. Sengupta was asked by receiving of notice to contest the revisional application. Dr. S. R. Sengupta as a contesting party of the revision is being represented through his Ld. Advocate.

            Accordingly, the revision is heard in presence of Ld. Legal Representatives of both sides.

                               DECISIONS WITH REASONS

            After hearing both sides, it appears to this Commission that vide order dated 12/09/2013, Ld. Forum, Siliguri has directed the OP to pay Rs. 12,10,000/- within 45 days, failing which 9 per cent per annum as interest will carry on over the said award amount until the date of realization. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble State Commission, Kolkata Bench where the order of Ld. Forum was not modified or rescinded and the order remains affirmed in toto. So, as per force of impugned order passed by the Ld. Forum dated 12/09/2013 the judgment debtor that is the OP of this case was bound to pay the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum after first 45 days from the date of order. During the course of argument of revision, the Ld. Advocate of the opposite party mentioned that the OP/judgment debtor has preferred an appeal which was decided in favour of the decree holder on 18/04/2017 and for that reason, the JDr has already paid of Rs. 10,000/- as interest and as such the DHr had no legal right to make any prayer to get Rs. 3,86,145/- by petition dated 20/06/2017. It is further submitted that after receiving the demand draft of Rs. 12,21,000/-, the decree holder has accepted the said amount as full satisfaction and for that reason, his further prayer is not admissible in law. Ld. Advocate of the revisionist countered this argument by mentioning that until the order of the award is modified by the appellate forum, there is no question to curtail the interest accrued by the decree holder during the course of pending appeal.

            We know very well that executing court cannot go beyond the decree or final order. The final order clearly implies that after 45 days of elapse since the date of final order, the decree holder is well entitled to get interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum as imposed by the decree holder and right now the executing authority has no legal sanctity to curtail the said legal right which has already accrued by the decree holder. Therefore, the order of Ld. Forum dated 14/12/2018 seems to be irregular and not vested in law. Accordingly, the revisional application should be allowed on its own merit.

                                       Hence it is ordered: -

            That the revisional application is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. Forum dated 14/12/2018 in execution case no. 4 of 2014 arising out of CC/105/S/2009 is hereby set aside. Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri is hereby requested to rehear the application of decree holder dated 20/06/2017 and deliver the appropriate order to secure the interest of the decree holder which he has already accrued in view of the final order of Ld. Forum dated 12/09/2013 in CC/105/S/2009 after hearing both sides. Both parties of this revision are asked to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri on 22/10/2019 for hearing before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri.

            Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.