Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 23-12-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in EA/170/2014, whereof the Execution Case has been dismissed.

In a short compass, case of the Appellant is that, he filed a complaint case before the Ld. District Forum bearing no. 323/2013 which was decreed in his favour.  Subsequently, although the Respondents paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to him, since the said amount was not paid within the stipulated time frame, the Respondents were liable to pay penal interest @ Rs. 200/- per day for each day’s delay.  Since the final order passed by the Ld. District Forum on 25-06-2014 did not specify the recipient of the said amount,  there remained a confusion. In any case, when Appellant’s prayer for receiving the penal interest amount was turned down by the Ld. District Forum and the Execution case was dropped, feeling aggrieved, this Appeal was filed.

Decision with reasons

Appellant himself pleaded his case before us.  On the other hand, Respondents were represented by their Ld. Advocate, who argued at length justifying the impugned order.  

It appears from the final order passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/323/2013 that Respondents were made liable to pay penal interest @ Rs. 200/- per day in case of non-compliance of the final order within 15 days from the date of that order. 

It further appears from the record that a dispute was cropped up in respect of punitive damage amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum. Since the final order passed by the Ld. District Forum kept mum about the beneficiary of said amount, when the punitive damage amount was paid to the Appellant, the Ld. District Forum asked him to deposit the said money with it and against such decision, the Appellant moved an Appeal before this Commission being no. A/1370/2014.  After hearing both sides, this Commission clarified the legal position in the following wordings, “the expression ‘the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages’ does not, in any manner, imply that the District Forum as granter may allow punitive damages to itself as grantee.  In fact the granter and the grantee may not be the same person or authority as that would be perceptually incorrect.  Accordingly, the order of the Ld. Forum below in asking the DHr to deposit the sum of Rs. 20,000/- i.e. punitive damages to the account of the Ld. Forum below is not lawful’. 

Subsequently, similar dispute developed regarding the penal interest amount.  Respondent were held liable to pay penal interest @ Rs. 200/- for each days default in the matter of compliance of the order passed on 25-06-2014 in CC/323/2013.  Since the Respondents paid the awarded sum, including punitive damages after 98 days since expiry of the threshold period set out in the final order passed in the afore mentioned complaint case, the Appellant staked claim for receiving the penal interest money which was, however, turned down by the Ld. District Forum vide its order dated 23-12-2015.

In this regard, we are to state that the position of law in respect of identical dispute has already been clarified by the earlier Bench of this Commission in A/1370/2014 and the same has not been challenged before any higher Forum.  Accordingly, the principal laid down by the earlier Bench of this Commission in this regard has attained finality. In view of this, we see no cogent reason to deviate from the beaten path. 

As such, we are inclined to allow this Appeal. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest.  The Respondents are directed to pay the penal interest amount to the Appellant within 40 days hence.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.