Date of Filling:      26.02.2018

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  04.04.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:     THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID M.A., M.L.,                                       :   PRESIDENT

                        TMT.K.PRAMEELA, M.COM.,                                     :   MEMBER – I

EA.No.01/2018 IN CC.No.50/2014,

THUSDAY THE 04^th   DAY OF APRIL 2019

M.P.Gowri Shankar,

S/o.Shri.M.V.Margabandu,

Plot No.9, Door No.5,

Anna Main Road,

Vijayalakshmipuram,

Ambattur, Chennai -600 053.        .………    Decree Holder/Petitioner.

                                                //Vs//

1.Shri. K.Ravi Seetharaman,

   Athreya Realtors &Promotors,

   S-3, Subham Apts., 2^nd Floor,

   No.15, Santhana Krishnan Street,

   Nehru Nagar, Chrompet,

   Chennai-600 044.                                        … Judgment Debtor/1^st Respondent.

2.The Investigating Officer,

    Economic Offences wing,

    SIDCO, Old Corporate Building, 1^st Floor,

   Thiru.vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,

   Guindy, Chennai -600 032.                     …… Judgment Debtor/2^nd Respondent.

Counsel for the Decree Holder/petitioner                   :  Party in person

Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/1st Respondent.  :  party in person

Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/2^nd Respondent.  :  Ex-parte.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/decree Holder against the Respondents/Judgment Debtors for compliance of the order passed in Consumer Complaint No.50/2014 dated 13.10.2015 under order 21 Rule 46, CPC.

2. Points for determination before this forum is:-

(1) Whether this EA is maintainable or not?

(2) To what other reliefs, the petitioner/Decree Holder is entitled?

3.Point No.1:-

The Decree Holder/petitioner/complainant has filed CC.No.50/2014 against the one K.Ravi Seetharaman for an order to direct the opposite party to pay compensation for causing deficiency in service.  This Forum after hearing both parties passed an order on 13.10.2015 and directed the opposite party namely K.Ravi Seetharaman to pay a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Thereafter the Decree Holder/petitioner/complainant had filed EA.No.06/2016 against the opposite party namely K.Ravi Seetharaman to comply the order, failing which, to order for arrest of Judgment Debtor under Section-27 of the Consumer Protection Act -1986. In the meantime the judgment debtor/opposite party has filed FA.No.16/2016 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.  Hence, the Decree holder/ petitioner/complainant has not pressed the above said EA and therefore this Forum dismissed EA.No.06/2016 on 21.09.2016 as follows:-

“As per the endorsement made by the petitioner/Decree Holder, this EA is dismissed as not pressed at this stage”.

 Now the appeal filed by the judgment debtor/Respondent/opposite party   in FA.No.16/2016 is still pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.

4. While so, on 29.01.2018 the Decree Holder/petitioner/complainant has filed the present EA.No.01/2018 against the (1) K.Ravi Seetharaman and (2) the Investigating Officer, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai as a judgment debtor/ 2^nd Respondent. Further the petitioner/Decree Holder/complainant has filed EA.No.01/2018 against the 2^nd Respondent under order 21 Rule 46, CPC.  The Decree Holder/petitioner/complainant in clause 12 of the EA seeking the relief as follows:-

“(I)The Decree Holder/petitioner prays that since there is no stay order or interim injunction has been issued by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Chennai against the decree of DCDRF, Thiruvallur dated 13.10.2015, this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to execute this petition and issue notice to the judgment Debtor/1^st Respondent as per section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the compliance of the order by paying a sum of Rs.6,81,170/- as stipulated in the order and pass further orders and thus render justice.

(II) Further it is observed that complaint has been filed with 2^nd Respondent for financial fraud and cheating against the judgment Debtor/1^st Respondent and part of the assets of Judgment Debtor /1^st Respondent has been frozen by 2^nd Respondent, the details of which are avail with 2^nd Respondent.  Therefore, it is prayed that a Decree of Garnishment be issued to 2^nd opposite party and adjudicated against Judgment Debtor/1^st Respondent in accordance with the procedure laid under order 21 Rule 46, CPC and thus render justice.  A copy of the 1^st information Report available with 2^nd Respondent is attached along with this petition.  Application and affidavit for Garnishee order also attached along with this petition.”

5. The 2^nd Respondent herein is not a party in this complaint and this forum has not passed any order against the 2^nd Respondent to pay the compensation.  But the Decree Holder/petitioner/Complainant added that the 2^nd Respondent  as a party and prayed an order to direct the 2^nd Respondent to adjudicate the 1^st Respondent in accordance with the procedure laid under order 21 Rule 46 CPC. But regarding execution of the order passed by this Forum, this Forum has followed the provision of section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. This Forum has no power to invoke order 21 Rule 46 CPC regarding execution.  Further the Consumer protection Act section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act says that the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit in respect of matter, namely:-

1. The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
2. The discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;
3. The reception of evidence on affidavits;
4. The requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
5. Issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness;
6. Any other matter which may be prescribed.” 

   Hence Court provision of CPC is not applicable regarding execution of order passed by this forum.  Therefore this forum has to invoke Section 25 and 27 of the consumer protection Act for execution of order passed by this Forum.  On the other hand the Decree Holder/petitioner/complainant has filed this petition against the judgment debtor and another person under order 21 Rule 46 CPC, which is not at all maintainable.

6. Further, the 1^st Respondent has filed an appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvallur, before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and the same is pending before Hon’ble SCDRC.  As per the endorsement made by the petitioner/DH, the previous EA.No.06/2016 was dismissed on the reason appeal is pending before SCDRC, Chennai.  But the same petitioner filed this EA.No.01/2018 in CC.No.50/2014 against the Respondent/opposite party and another person Pending F.A.No.16/2016 before State Commission.  The opposite party has not produced any order from the Hon’ble SCDRC to stay the execution of the order passed in CC.No.50/2014.  Hence this Forum has every right to proceed the EA Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  But the complainant filed this EANo.01/2018 against the Respondent/opposite party and another person under order 21 Rule 46 CPC.  The complainant has not filed an EA against the Respondent/opposite party under section 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore the decree holder/petitioner/complainant has every right to file a separate EA against the Judgment debtor under section 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The reason stated in the EA.No.01/2018 is not acceptable and there is no merit in the petition.  The Decree Holder/ petitioner/ complainant approached this Forum without any basis and in contra to the provision of section 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Under these circumstances this EA is not maintainable.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2:-

In the result, this EA is dismissed as not maintainable.  No Costs.

This order has been pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 4^th April 2019.

         -Sd-                                                                                     -Sd-                                                                                 

  MEMBER –I                                                                          PRESIDENT