Present: 1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
30th day of June 2016
M.P/82/02 in O.P.39/91 filed on 20/4/2002
Complainant : Joby K. John, Kuthokaran House, AmmadamP.O.
Thrissur .
(By Adv.Anto Davis A, Thrissur-1)
Opposite Parties : 1. A.O.Palu, Adumbukudam House,
P.O.Kodannur, Thrissur.
2. A.P.Varghese, S/o.Poulose, Adumbukudam
House, P.O.Paralam, Ammadam.
3. P.A.Anotny, Padavan House, P.O.Kodannur,
Thrissur.
4. A.P.Joy, S/o.Late Pius, Master Adumbukudam
House, Ammadam P.O., Thrissur.
5. P.P.Chakku, Pellissery House, P.O.Ammadam,
Thrissur.
(By Ad.C.J.Varghese, Thrissur-4)
6. V.C.Rappai, Vadakkethala House,
Pootharakkal, P.O.Cherpu, Thrissur.
7. P.D.Kochuouseph master,Pellissery House,
P.O.Ammadam, Thrissur.
8. P.K.Paul Master, Pellissery House,
P.O.Ammadam, Thrissur.
9. K.L.Johnson Master, Kuruthukulangara
House, P.O.Ammadam, Thrissur.
10. K.A.Inasu Master, Kuruthukulangara House,
P.O.Ammadam, Thrissur.
11. P.P.Chakkappan, Pellissery House,
P.O.Ammadam, Thrissur.
12. A.P.Antony, S/o.Kuriakose, Adumbukudan
House, P.O.Ammadam, Thrissur.
13. M/s.Ammadam St.Antony’s High
School,Ammadam, Represented by Managing
Director A.P.Joy.
(ByAdv.A.D.Benny,Thrissur for 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,12&13)
O R D E R
By : Sri.P.K.Sasi, President
This is a petition filed by the complainant of OP 39/91 for realizing the ordered amount from the respondents who were the opposite parties of the CC. However, this is an application filed under Sec.27 of CP Act it is treated as an execution petition for recovery of the amount. The respondents appeared through counsel and filed their counter statements. According to the petitioner, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 16.10.1997 the petitioner herein is entitled to get Rs.16000/- with 15% interest from 21.07.1990 till realization deducting an amount of Rs.12,289/- which has to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite parties. The respondents herein are not complied that order. Hence this petition is filed. Except the 5th respondent all other respondents appeared through same counsel and filed a common statement. According to them as per the order of Hon’ble State Commission passed on 16.10.1997 “ In the circumstances, the order that ought to have been passed by the Dispute Redressal Forum was to direct the first opposite party to pay Rs. 16000/- together with interest at the rate of 15 % from 21.07.1990 till payment. The first opposite party is entitled to deduct from his amount future instalments if they are not paid. We hold the first opposite party will not be entitled to get any interest on the instalment amount due from the petitioner etc. According to them, towards the dues of future instalments the petitioner herein has to pay Rs. 12,600/- instead of that it was written as Rs.12,289/- in the appeal statement. At the list the petitioner ought to have been considered Rs.12,600/- as received as on 16.10.1997 the order was pronounced by the Hon’ble State Commission. That was not done by the petitioner herein.
2. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration was that,
1) Whether, there was any balance amount to be paid by the
respondents herein as per the appeal orders?.
2) If so, what cost and relief.
3. From the side of petitioner, he has filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the details mentioned in the petition. He was examined as PW1 and thoroughly cross examined by the counsel for the respondents. He produced Hon’ble State Commission’s order and marked as Ext.P1.
4. From the side of respondents the 4th respondent appeared before the Forum and filed counter proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and submitted all other contentions raised in the counter. He was examined as DW1 and vehemently cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner. After a long period the petition came up for hearing on 14/07.2015. Both sides filed calculation statement based on that statement we heard in detail also.
5. We have perused the calculation statements as well as the Ext.P1 appeal order. In the calculation statement submitted from the side of petitioner they have calculated interest for Rs.16000/- without deducting the amount which was due towards the future instalments. Whereas, in the calculation statement submitted from the side of respondents they have calculated by deducting Rs.12,600/- from Rs.16,000/-. Here the points to be considered is that out of these two calculation statements which can be accepted. In Ext.P1 appeal order it is very clearly stated that the first opposite party is entitled to deduct from his amount future instalments if they are not paid. It is argued by the petitioner’s side that they can only be deducted after paying Rs.16000/- and interest by the respondents. That cannot be accepted since it is very clearly mentioned in the Ext. P1 order that the opposite party need only to pay deducting the amount of future instalments. Here there is no case for the petitioner that they have paid the future instalments.
6. Considering all these points we are of the opinion that the statement submitted by the respondent’s side is correct and that can only be accepted. According to the statement they have already paid some amount in excess. The excess amount paid cannot be considered at this stage.
7. In the result, we dismiss this petition finding that there is no amount in due from the respondents as per the Ext.P1 appeal order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of June 2016.
(Sd) (Sd) (Sd)
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Petitioner’s Exhibit
Ext.P1- State Commission’s Order
Petitioner’s Witness
PW1- Joby K John
Defendant’s Witness
DW1- A.P.Joy
