Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/26/2012

Sri Jhulan Baruah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Jayanya kr. Sarma

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

J U D G  M E N T

 

         The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of his business purchased a second hand passenger bus bearing Registration No.AS-03-F/0377 from Sri Milton Bora of Jorhat by paying a consideration money  and got his name transferred and registered at DTO, Jorhat on 25.4.11. After purchasing the bus the complainant is earning his livelihood by plying the said bus from Jorhat to Dibrugarh till 11.8.12. The bus was the only source of income of the complainant and the families of driver, conductor and 3 nos. of handymen and helper of the bus were solely dependent upon the said bus. The above bus after purchasing required for repairing for which the complainant approached before OP No.2 who readily agreed to finance for repair of the bus. The complainant as such got the said bus refinanced through OP No.2 from OP No.1 to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- only. As per agreement complainant would have to pay Rs.22,844/- per month as EMI w.e.f. October, 2011 as such, the complainant handed over12 nos. of post dated blank cheque of State Bank of India, Dibrugarh. The condition was that the OP No.2 would present the cheque only after giving prior information to the complainant. After receiving the finance from the OP No.1 the complainant started making repayment of monthly instalment as per agreement. The complainant since October, 2011 paid EMI @ Rs.22,844/- for the month of October 2011, November 2011, December 2011, January 2012, February 2012, March 2012, May 2012 and June, 2012 amounting to Rs.1,83,627/-. The complainant due to his acute financial problem he could not pay the monthly instalment for the month of April and July,2012 which he intimated to the OP No.2 and also met the official of OP No.3 stating that due to some mechanical defect of the bus he failed to pay the EMI of above two months and the official of OP No.3 informed him that  normally for default of payment of EMI for consecutive three months they opt for repossessing the vehicle but as the complainant’s track record was good they would not opt for repossessing the vehicle of the complainant. But surprisingly enough, on 11.8.12 while the bus was coming from Jorhat to Dibrugarh the OP No.1 suddenly taken custody of the bus at Sivasagar without any prior intimation to the complainant. The complainant was informed by his employee that the bus was taken repossession by the OPs by using force showing undesirable misbehaviour who were seems to be goons and dangerous in nature. The complainant further contended that about 4-5 nos. of post dated cheques signed by the complainant are still lying in the custody of OP No.1 but without presenting the same in the bank for recovery of money the OPs had opted  for using goons for possessing the vehicle by using force in deceitful manner which is quite illegal and contrary to as per agreement.  The OPs have forcefully taken away the vehicle of the complainant without giving any reasonable opportunity of paying the balance of two months instalment against the money and thus have committed grave deficiency of service and illegal trade practice. The earning  of the complainant is totally stopped due to sudden closure of the business of the complainant due to such illegal act of the OPs. As such, having no other alternative complainant filed this petition before the Forum with prayer to return the bus immediately , compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental anxiety, Rs.30,000/- for making the bus fit for plying in the road and Rs.7000/- per day from the date of taking the forceful possession of the vehicle till the date of return.

             On the basis of the above complaint petition this case was registered and issued notice to the OP No.1,2,3 who appeared before the Forum and submitted their written statement.

             OP No.1,2,3 in their written statement stated inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in facts. Complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s.2(d) (i) of C.P. Act. Further, there is no jurisdiction to file this case before this Forum. It is also contended that the case is not triable in the Forum as per Arbitration clause and to be decided by the arbitrator. Further the complainant has not come with clean hand and suppressed the material fact that the complainant had initially filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same subject matter on 4.8.12 and the suit was registered as Title Suit No.44/12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh. The complainant had also filed a petition U/O.39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for granting temporary injunction restraining the OP from taking possession of the bus and the said petition was registered as Misc. Case being Misc.(J) case No.53/12 in the same Civil Judge Court. But the Civil Judge declined to issued any ad-interim temporary injunction as prayed for. As the complainant failed to get the relief in the civil court the complainant by twisting the fact filed the present case by suppressing the material fact. The OPs in their written statement admitted that the complainant had taken the loan of  Rs.6,00,000/- from the OPs and had executed the loan agreement dated 29.8.2011. It was also admitted that the amount was repayable in 46 instalment of Rs.22,844/-. But the OPs in their written statement stated that the complainant executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of OP along with the loan cum hypothecation agreement and as per clause No.4 of the power of attorney the complainant specifically empowered the OPs to take possession of financed asset (bus) in case of any default as per terms of the loan agreement. Further, as per clause 5 of the Power of Attorney OPs are empowered to transfer, sale or dispose the asset and to sign and execute all contract, declaration and instalment and necessary form as may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the  transfer, sale or any other disposal. The OPs in their written statement stated that complainant had paid only 7 nos. of monthly instalment/ EMI out of 46 nos. and failed to pay the monthly instalment/ EMIs for the month of April, June and July, 2012. The complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- only in the month of June 2012 which was meant for insurance of the bus and not towards the EMI. As the complainant failed to pay the monthly EMI duly and regularly the OP have requested the complainant several times to pay and clear his dues and further informed that  if he fails to clear the dues then the OPs will be forced to  take action as per terms and conditions in the agreement but the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of the OPs and failed to pay the EMI for the month of April, June and July, 2012. The complainant instead of paying the arrear EMI filed a Title Suit being T.S. No.44/12 and Misc. (J) Case No.53/12 before the Civil Judge, Dibrugarh. With prayer to restrain the OPs from taking possession of the bus but said order  was not granted by the Civil Judge and being unsuccessful for obtaining any relief from the civil court had approached before this Forum. Since, the complainant defaulted in paying the arrear  EMI the OPs have every right to repossess the bus as per agreement dated 29.8.2011 and accordingly the OPs repossessed the bus as per provision of law after  fulfilling all due formalities as required under law on 11.8.2012 at Sivasagar with due intimation to the complainant as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is further submitted that no goons were used and the bus was not repossessed forcefully as alleged by the complainant but the bus was repossessed as per provision of law. The OPs further stated that on the date of filing the present case the civil suit  filed by the complainant as aforesaid was pending before Civil Judge, Dibrugarh whereas, the complainant has suppressed this  material fact. The case of the complainant being absence of merit is liable to be dismissed with cost.

           In this case the complainant examined three witnesses  as CW-1, CW-2 and CW-3 and exhibited 9 (nine) documents in support of his case. The OPs have examined one Sri Biju Kr. Gogoi as DW-1 and exhibited 4 (four) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

         

Decision and reasons thereof:

           Upon going through the evidence of both parties and after going through the documentary evidence and argument advanced by  both the parties it is found that the complainant is a businessman by profession and purchased a second hand passenger bus bearing Registration No.AS-03-F/0377 from one Sri Milton Bora of Jorhat. Ext-1 is the registration certificate of the said bus. After purchasing the said bus complainant was earning his livelihood by plying the said bus from Jorhat to Dibrugarh. From the evidence on record it is found that the bus was the only source of income of the complainant. After being purchased the said bus required for repairing and as such, the complainant approached before OP No.2 who readily agreed to finance for repairing of the bus. The OP No.1 and 2 granted an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as loan after duly signed an agreement by the complainant. As per agreement the complainant had to pay Rs.22,844/- per month as EMI w.e.f. October, 2011. The complainant also issued 12 nos. of post dated black cheque of the State Bank of India, Dibrugarh. After receiving the above finance from OP No.1 the complainant started making repayment of monthly instalment Rs.22,844/- for the month of October 2011, November 2011, December 2011, January 2012, February 2012, March 2012 vide Ext.3,4,5,6 and 7. This fact of payment of EMI till the month of March, 2012 is admitted by the OPs. Whereas, OPs in their written statement stated that the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- in the month of June, 2012 was meant for insurance of the bus and not towards monthly instalment. From perusal of the Ext-2 it appears that the complainant paid only Rs.20,000/- whereas the EMI is Rs.22,844/- as such, it appears that complainant paid the EMI upto March, 2012. The complainant in his evidence stated that due to his acute financial problem he could not pay the monthly instalment for the month of April and July, 2012 and the matter was intimated to OP No.2 and also met the official of OP No-3. The official of OP No.3  was convinced  and informed him that they will not repossessed the vehicle as the complainant’s track record was good. Ext-8 through which the complainant proved that he deposited EMI till March, 2012.

         On perusal of evidence on record and the documents it is found that on 11.8.2012 while the bus was coming from Jorhat to Dibrugarh the OPs  by using some goons repossessed the bus at Sivasagar without any prior intimation to the complainant. The complainant was informed by the employee of the bus that his bus was repossessed by the OPs by using force and misbehaved the driver. The OPs have forcefully taken away the vehicle of the complainant without  giving any reasonable opportunity for paying the balance of two months instalment. Due to the above repossession the earning of the complainant is totally stopped due to sudden  closure of the business of the complainant due to such illegal act of the OPs. It is admitted fact that the complainant was defaulter of EMI for three months and the OPs have right to repossess the vehicle as per agreement but before that they must follow the procedure and rule of law. Whereas, in the present case the action of the OP is clearly impermissible  and amounts to taking  law in its own hand. The OPs examined one DW but by his evidence OP has failed to show that due notice was properly served on the appellant. The OPs denied that the vehicle was taken in possession by applying force and illegally. The evidence of DW-1 appears that they have possessed the vehicle by complying with all the essential formalities. The OP has the right to repossess the vehicle as the complainant failed to make the instalment. The witness of the OP stated that they have issued notice but failed to produce any such documentary evidence to show that  they have issued notice to the complainant before repossessing the above vehicle. As such,  the evidence of DW-1 failed to rebut and impair evidence of PW-1.

        The complainant in support of his case adduced two other evidence Sri Rupam Borgohain as CW-2 and Sri Jayanta Jyoti Baruah as CW-3. CW-2 Rupam Borgohain was the driver of the complainant’s bus No.AS-03/F-0377. He stated in his evidence that due to arising of certain mechanical defect the bus was kept of the road for at least a week in the month of April and May, 2012 and complainant had to face some financial problem. He further stated that on 11.8.12 at about 3:00PM while he was returning from Jorhat with some passengers he arrived at Sivasagar  ASTC bus stand. Meanwhile 3-4 nos. of young and stout musclemen  forcefully entered into the bus, over powered him by threatening and  forcefully got the passenger out from the bus and took the bus to unknown destination. The other court witness No.3 Jayanta Baruah who happened to be the passenger of the bus stated that on 11.8.2012 he was travelling from Jorhat to Dibrugarh by bus No.AS-03-F/0377. Around 3:00PM they have arrived Sivasagar ASTC bus stand. At that time suddenly 3-4 stout and strong musclemen entered into the bus, threatened the driver  and the conductor and also asked all the passenger to leave the bus with their beg and baggage announcing that the bus had been taken in their custody. Those 3-4 persons seems to be goons and dangerous in nature  and introduced themselves that they had been appointed and authorised by Hinduja Finance Ltd to take the custody of the bus. From the above act of the OPs it emerge clear that the complainant was dispossessed by force by the OPs by using some recovery agent which is not permissible and amount to taking law in its own hand. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a landmark judgment  ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur and others reported in 2007 SCC 711 stated that the practice adopted by the bank of taking forceful possession of  the vehicle  by hiring recovery agent as below.

“ 16. Before we part with this matter , we wish to  make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by the law to take possession of the vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics.”

 

In the above cited case it has also been held as below-

 “Now the bank is the aggressor and the public is the victim. The first step to recover the money due is through the so-called recovery/ collection agents. A very dignified term used for paid recovery agents who are individual and independent contractors hired by the banks both to trace the defaulters and to physically, mentally and emotionally torture and force them into submitting their dues.

A man’s self-respect, stature in society are all immaterial to the agent who is only primed at recovery. This is the modernized version of Shylock’s pound of flesh. No explanation is given regarding the interest charge and the bank takes cover under the guise of the holder of the card or loan having signed the agreement whose fine print is never read or explained to the owner.”

       Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that complainant have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the OP along with a loan cum hypothecation agreement and as per clause No.4 of Power of Attorney  the complainant specifically empowered the OPs to take possession of finance asset i.e. the vehicle in case of any default as per terms of loan agreement and to retain or to delay or otherwise deal with the vehicle as the OP deem fit in the circumstances. Further, as per clause- 5 of the Power of Attorney the complainant specifically authorised the OPs to transfer, sale or dispose of the  asset and to sign and execute all contract, declaration and instrument and necessary  form as may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the transfer , sale or any other disposal. Admittedly, OPs are empowered to take possession of the vehicle as per terms of loan agreement. But Bank should resort to the procedure recognised by the law to take possession of the vehicle in case where borrower have committed default in payment of EMI. The judgment cited above it appears clear that it is not permitted to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced by the use of force. Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is not excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of ‘instant justice’ cannot be permitted in a civilised society where there is effective rule of law. By an agreement the vehicle can be given as security for the loan advanced and the right to seize the vehicle is merely a licence to ensure compliance  with the terms of the so-called hire purchase agreement. It is admitted that the complainant is defaulter of EMI for 3 months and there is having various laws for recovery of money or to repossess the vehicle but not permitted to take instant justice by using musclemen to repossess the vehicle. The action taken by the OPs was illegal, arbitrary and criminal in nature which required to be compensated and by punitive damages besides refunding market value of the vehicle with interest.

 

“In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of Honb’le National Commission  reported as “Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S.Vijayalaxmi” 2007 CTJ 1145 (CP)=III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) in which it has been held as below :

1. When a vehicle is purchased by a person (consumer) by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/banker, the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money lender/financier/banker, unless the ownership is transferred.

2. In a democratic country having well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impressible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced, by use of force.

3. Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of ‘instant justice’ cannot be permitted in a civilised society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise, it would result in anarchy that too when the borrower retorts and uses the force.

 

    Learned counsel for the OPs further submitted that the complaint petition has been filed for reliefs which are squarely within the scope and ambit of arbitration clause containing the loan cum hypothecation agreement which read as under :

1. All disputes, differences or claim arising out of touching upon this agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Court at Chennai alone have exclusive jurisdiction to try and determine  and proceeding arise out of end/or within the agreement as such, the present case is barred as per provision of section 5 and 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996.

As such, this Consumer Forum at Dibrugrh has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition.

   As regards to submission of arbitration it may be stated that the provision of section- 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  is in addition and not in derogation for the proceeding of any other law for the time being in force. It is clear that the legislature intended to provide under Consumer Protection Act in addition to the constituent arbitration, which could not be enforced under the Arbitration Act or the civil action in a suit under the provision of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore,  Arbitration Act does not confer an automatic right nor creates an automatic embargo on the exercise of power by the judicial authority under C.P. Act. Thus, even if the hire purchase agreement contain arbitration clause, the complainant made under this Act was legally maintainable and is answered accordingly.

     Learned counsel for the OPs further submitted that the complainant has not come with clean hand and has suppressed the material fact that the complainant had initially filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same subject matter of this complaint case in the court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh on 4.8.12 which was registered as Title Suit NO.44/12 and complainant had also filed a petition U/O.39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the OP for taking possession of the vehicle and the said petition was registered as Misc. Case being Misc.(J) Case No.53/12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh. Learned Civil Judge on 4.8.12 declined to issue any ad-interim temporary injunction as prayed for. It is settled principle of law that no parallel proceeding for virtually the same and connected cause of action should be permitted. But while  complainant lodged the present case and the complainant has not disclosed the above material fact before the Forum and filed this complaint case by twisting the real fact during the pendency of the aforesaid suits.

               In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that the OP exhibited two documents i.e. Ext.3 certified copy of Title Suit No.44/12 of the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh  containing the order and the copy of the complaint and Ext.4 is also the certified copy of Misc. (J) Case No.53/12 of the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh containing the order sheet and the copy of injunction petition. The present case was filed on 4.9.12.The complainant in the both the cases filed petition with prayer to withdraw both the cases i.e. Title Suit No.44/12 and Misc.(J) Case No.53/12 on 4.9.12. Whereas, learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh kept both the petition pending and allowed to withdraw on 12.9.12. Hence, it appears that though the complainant filed Title Suit and as well as Misc. Case before the Civil Judge, Dibrugarh but on the date of filing the present case have withdrawn both the cases from the Court of Civil Judge. The complainant withdrawn the case from the civil court of law and filed the case before the Forum  under C.P. Act, 1986, as the consumer justice system as complainant says is quick and in exclusive law of stipulated limited time for adjudication of the complainant since the C.P. Act is socio economic legislation in the country. It is not a parallel proceeding as stated by the OP. The complainant after withdrawing the case from the civil court came to this Forum for quick relief which is justified.

             Learned counsel for the OP again submitted that the present complaint petition is not maintainable as the bus was used by the complainant for commercial purpose and as such, he is not protected under C.P. Act.

            It is to be mentioned here that the word for commercial purpose used in section 2(1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act have to be given of precise and restricted meaning ; commercial purpose has to be distinguished from commercial protection and commercial activity. As provided in the explanation issued by ordinance in C.P. ordinance dated 21.6.93 “commercial purpose” does not include used by a consumer of goods bought and use by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, purpose of his bus for self employment to earn livelihood is not for commercial purpose.

          Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that as the complainant failed to pay 3 EMI as such, OPs have requested the complainant to pay and clear his dues and further informed the complainant that if he fails to clear the dues, then the OPs will be bound to take action as per terms and conditions provided in loan cum hypothecation agreement but the complainant did not pay any heed to the repeated request of the OP. It is further stated that the OP repossesses the bus as per provision of law after fulfilling all the due formalities under law on 11.8.12 at Sivasagar with due intimation to the complainant.

           It is admitted that on 11.8.12 the OP repossessed the bus but not as per law and not by fulfilling due formalities as required under the law. From the perusal of the evidence on record adduced by CW-1,2,3 as discussed above it clearly reveals that the OPs without issuing any notice by using force and with the help of some musclemen repossessed the bus by abusing the driver and asked the passenger to leave the bus with their beg and baggage on their way to Dibrugarh  announcing that the bus has been taken into their custody. Thus, repossession of the bus with the use of force by the OP is not legal and amount to the deficiency of service. The OPs have repossessed the said bus illegally and arbitrarily.

            It is to be mentioned here that the complainant was running the bus after purchasing and since then earning  his livelihood till 11.8.12. Further, from perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is found that he was defaulter for April, May and June, 2012. The reason assigned by the complainant for failure of payment of EMI was that as the bus was required to be repaired and the bus had been withdrawn from the road he could not pay the EMI for those three months. He was supposed to pay the E.M.I. but his earning from the bus since 11.8.12 has been closed. The complainant had no intention to stop the payment of EMI but due to his financial crisis for repairing of the bus he could not pay the EMI for three months. Had the bus not been repossessed by the OP he could have repay his loan as per agreement but the said opportunity was deprived by the OP by repossessing the bus. By repossessing the bus by the OP has put the complainant in harsh position. The complainant deposited post dated cheque for twelve months out of which the OP received six instalments. The complainant  in the month of May also deposited another Rs.20,000/- but as the bus has repossessed he could not pay the remaining instalment. The action of repossessing the bus by the OP is harsh step taken without issuing any notice and giving opportunity to repay the EMI of 46 instalments. The action taken by the OPs was illegal, arbitrary and criminal in nature which require to be compensated by punitive law and to refund market value of the vehicle with interest.

             So far Misc. Case No.3/12 is concerned it is found that the complainant vide petition No.441 prayed for an  interim relief by directing the OPs to return the bus which has been forcibly taken away from the possession of the complainant by engaging some goons from the road while the bus was coming from Jorhat to Dibrugarh.  This Forum has viewed the aforesaid act of the OP of taking the possession of the bus in the manner stated above seriously, and passed an interim order dated 17.9.13 directing the OP to return the bus forthwith to the complainant on receiving the amount of unpaid instalment. Whereas, the OPs willingly and intentionally disobeyed the interim order.

              In the above Misc. Case No.3/12 the OP in their petition No.422 dated 20.11.13 stated that the complainant has not yet complied with the order of the Forum dated 17.9.13 whereby,  the said order complainant was asked to receive the bus after paying the unpaid instalment to the OP and for not paying the said instalment the accumulation of EMI payable till 7.11.13 is Rs.4,45,854/- which is wrongly computed. Since, the complainant failed to repay the said EMI the OP prayed to pass necessary order for auction of sale of the bus. The said petition was not disposed of in the Misc. Case and remain pending. As such, said petition is subject to disposed in this case. But after due consideration of the record discussed above I am of the view that the payment of EMI of Rs.4,45,854/- is not practicable and feasible for the complainant in absence of running the bus. The bus which is repossessed by the OP on 11.8.12 is lying outside for more than 2 years 7 months with OPs ideally under open air and must have been damaged under air, rain water and sun. As such, the bus must have not in petition to run again. Under the circumstances, returning of the bus to the complainant will not serve any purpose. Since, the vehicle remained under detention of OP the complainant has not been able to use it. Keeping the view of the above act of the OPs they should not get any damage either to compute the period for payment of instalment or for payment interest or instalment and the bus which is lying with OP is allowed to dispose of on auction by OPs. The Misc. Case No.3/12 is disposed of accordingly.

         Now coming to the  question of compensation to be given to the complainant it is found quite clear from the foregoing discussion that the OPs failed to prove that they have repossessed the vehicle after due notice as per the pacific legal procedure because there is no evidence placed on record. Thus, it appears clear that vehicle was forcefully repossessed by the OPs, which constitute a serious deficiency in service from which complainant is required to compensated by punitive law and to refund the market value of the vehicle. Because the bus is lying with OP for more than 2 years 7 months without running and lying in open ground.

         From perusal of the record it is found that the OPs on 11.8.12 repossessed the bus and since then the bus was of the road and  earning source of the complainant has also been closed for illegal repossession of the vehicle by OPs. As such, question of repaying the E.M.I. does not arise. Apart from these there is no evidence on record regarding the valuation of the bus to be indemnify.

        Under the circumstance it is clear that the C.P. Act as provided provision for correcting the shortcoming in the service or goods provided by way of awarding compensation or other means specified in the provision 14 (d) the Forum comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and the loss suffered by the complainant for the reason discussed above for not releasing of the bus and thereby remain to repay the EMI the OP may be imposed a consolidated compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claiming till realisation for the loss of asset; mental loss, pain and suffering and OP is also directed to return the unused cheque to the complainant. All the  above amount shall be paid to the complainant through this Forum within two months from the date of this judgment.        

Furnish   copy of this judgment to OPs for compliance.