Delhi

North East

EA/35/2018

MOHD. NAEEM KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Execution Petition No. 35/18

In the matter of:

 

	Mohd. Naeem Khan S/o Mohd. Tanawwer Khan R/o H.No. Z 11/593, JJ Colony North East District, Delhi 110094		Decree Holder(DH)
	Versus
1.             2.         3.	M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Through Manager/H.O.D At its registered office:- A 31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044   Gupta Electronic 16-17 Through its Proprietor At 1/1551, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032   M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager/HOD Regd. Office at G Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 4110006	Judgement Debtors(JD)

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

1. This order shall dispose off an application dated 14.06.24 filed by the DH for payment of the interest on the decretal amount. We have heard the DH and have perused the record. The facts necessary for the disposal of the application are as under:
2. Vide order dated 11.04.18 the complaint bearing no. 368/16 filed by the Complainant was allowed and the following order was passed:

“7. Therefore the Complainant is able to establish deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 and not against Opposite Party No.3 and as such we direct Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 jointly and severally to refund the cost of LED TV i.e. Rs 63,000/-. We also award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation payable by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

3. The Opposite Party filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.23. On 07.06.24 the DH received the amount as per order dated 18.09.18. Thereafter, the DH has filed the present application stating therein that it took more than 6 years for compliance of the order passed by the predecessor bench of this Commission and therefore he is entitled to claim/receive interest on the decretal amount.
4. The perusal of the order dated 18.09.18 shows that no interest was ordered to be paid on the decretal amount. The Complainant did not file any appeal against the said order and thus the order has attained finality. The DH has failed to show any legal provision under which he can claim any interest on the decretal amount passed vide order dated 18.09.18. The Hon’ble State Commission in its order dated 21.09.23 also ordered that the parties were left to bear their own costs.
5. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the application and the same is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 28.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)