Chandigarh

DF-I

EA/29/2024

MAHARAJ KRISHAN DUTTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

GAUTAM BHARADWAJ

06 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	EA/29/2024
Date of Institution	:	31.1.2024
Date of Decision	:	6/8/2024

 

 (1)Maharaj Krishan Datta,

(2) Kapil Datta

(3) Shivani Datta

All Residents of H.No. 12, Pine Homes, Block 'C', Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali

..Decree Holders/complainants.

Versus

 

ICICI Bank Ltd.  S.C.O No132-134, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

.....Judgement Debtor/Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant/DH
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for JD/OP

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. This order shall dispose of the application/criminal complaint  filed under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to be  as Act).

1. It transpires from the averments as projected  in the application  that earlier the complainant had filed an execution application bearing No. 103/2023  with this Commission and this Commission has omitted to take any cognizance of the facts brought in notice in para 2(A), B&C  of the aforesaid execution application. As per calculation the amount payable by the OP was Rs.33,819/-  whereas the JD has miscalculated the said amount and released an amount of Rs.29,692/- and in this manner, OP had not paid an amount of Rs.4127/-. It is further alleged that this Commission vide order dated 18.1.2016 Annexure P/3  passed in EA/130/2014  in complaint No.1469 of 2008 decided on 10.7.2009 Annexure P/2,  passed decree of Rs.10,54,755/-  in favour of the decree holder against the JD bank on account of overcharging of interest on home loan interest  and instead of  honouring the decree, the OP had only paid Rs.3,85,993/-  against the decretal amount of Rs.10,54,755/-. However, this Commission has declined to award the interest amount and thereafter the complainant filed RP/5/2016  before the Hon’ble State Commission on the ground of error in calculation of dereetal amount.  Unfortunately the Hon’ble State Commission partially accepted the  Revision Petition  by disallowing the payment of Rs.4,81,505/-  vide order dated 4.4.2016 Annexure P/4. Against the said order of Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant approached the Hon’ble National Commission  where JD had filed affidavit P/5  disclosing the quantum of interest calculated but the Hon’ble National Commission has also mis-interpreted the affidavit given on oath and relying upon the said affidavit, the Hon’ble National Commission passed order dated 29.5.2017 Annexure P/6  which led to miscarriage of justice. Thereafter the OP had paid an amount of Rs.2,64,363/-  and thereby paid  total amount of Rs.6,50,356/-  out of the total decretal amount of Rs.10,54,755/-. It is further alleged that as the OP had not calculated  the payable amount as per  decree and the executing courts have also not taken into consideration the facts while passing orders and also that the affidavit filed by the OP was also misinterpreted by the Hon’ble National Commission and as such the decree holder is entitled for an amount of Rs.4127/- and Rs.5,24,974/-  alongwith interest and compensation.    
2. The JD/OP filed objections to the application and resisted  the same and alleged that in fact as the entire amount has already  been paid to the complainants in pursuance of order passed by this Commission, which was upheld upto the Hon’ble Highest court and the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal filed by the complainant was upheld upto Hon’ble Apex Court  and the complainant has filed another false execution application, the same is liable to be dismissed. ‘
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the original complaint filed by the complainants before this Commission, was decided on 10.7.2009 and the same has attained finality and thereafter the complainant had filed execution application in pursuance to the said order passed by this Commission, which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 12.4.2018 (Annexure P-7) but   later on in the appeal the said order was modified and the OP was directed to make payment of Rs.15,114.82Ps.  to the complainants alongwith interest and  against the said order the complainants had also approached the Hon’ble National Commission  as well Hon’ble Apex Court  but the same ended in dismissal confirming the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission  dated 24.8.2018,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the present execution application filed under Section 72 of the Act by the complainants is maintainable and the complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed for or if  the decree has already been complied with by the JD/OP and the execution application  being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.
   2. As per   Decree Holders/complainants the JD/OP had paid an amount of Rs.4127/- less than the actual amount payable  as out of the total payable amount of Rs.33,819/- the OP has paid Rs.29,692/-.But as the complainants have failed to prove on record with which method they have calculated the amount of Rs.4127/-,  it is unsafe to hold that the complainants are entitled for  the said amount.  However, from para 2 to 12 of the present application it is clear that in fact by filing the present application under Section 72 of the Act,  the complainants are seeking re-opening of the complaint as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission dated 24.8.2018  whereby an amount of Rs.15,114.82 Ps was ordered to be paid by the OP to the complainant i.e. only the remaining  balance amount and the said order was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Apex Court which is also evident from copy of order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 17.1.2019 available on the case file.
   3. The complainants have even not spared this  Commission as well as the Hon’ble State Commission and  Hon’ble National Commission by alleging that all the aforesaid Commissions  have mis-interpreted the order under execution while passing the order in the execution petition, which resulted in causing miscarriage of justice knowing fully well that he has received the entire amount from JD/OP
   4. Not only this, in para 2 of the application the complainant has alleged that the District Commission has passed the decree for an amount of Rs.10,54,755/- vide order dated 10.7.2009 in the order under execution, which was also even endorsed  in the order dated 18.1.2016 passed by the executing court in Execution No.130 of 2014. However perusal of order dated 10.7.2009  Annexure P-2  passed by this Commission nowhere indicates that the decree was passed for an amount of Rs.10,54,755/- rather it was ordered that the JD/OP shall overhaul the account of the complainants and to charge interest from the complainants only at the rates given in the said order. Even order dated 18.1.2016  passed by this  Commission is of no help  to the complainants as this Commission vide order dated 12.4.2018 passed in execution application NO. 130 of 2014 dismissed the execution of the complainants  and as such the earlier order dated 18.1.2016 merged  with the said order passed by  this Commission. Against the said order of this Commission the complainant approached the Hon’ble State Commission, who has partly allowed the claim of complainants vide order dated 24.8.2018  by holding that only balance amount of Rs.15,114.82Ps   is  remained  to be payable by the JD/OP to the complainant.
   5. Aggrieved with the said order of the Hon’ble State Commission the complainants approached the Hob’ble National Commission where the complainants also agitated  about the affidavit filed by the JD/OP regarding which the complainants have also made allegation against the JD/OP for filing false  affidavit before the Hon’ble National Commission but the Hon’ble National Commission has also held in para NO.7 of the order dated 17.1.2019  that so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant about the wrong affidavit filed by the bank is concerned, as the order dated 17.5.2017  has already become final, it cannot be re-opened at this stage making it further clear that the complainants are filing series of execution applications after dismissal of the earlier one and the present execution application is also filed on one of the same ground which  had already been agitated by the complainants in the earlier execution application and  on finding that the  complainants were unsuccessful before the Hon’ble Highest Commission as well as before the  Hon’le Apex Court, it is safe to hold that the present execution application being false and frivolous  liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.    

2.  For reasons mentioned above the application filed under section 72  being not maintainable is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the complainants in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. Accordingly the JD/OP is discharged.
3. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
4. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 6/08/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member