ORDER NO. 12 DT. 12.02.2010

          This Execution Case arose out of judgement and order dt. 6.3.09 in this Commission Case No. 44/O/07 when the Decree Holder namely M/s. Ramkrishna Saha, filed this execution case stating inter alia that inspite of communication to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking compliance of the judgement and order as passed in S.C. Case No. 44/O/07, the Respondents deliberately and negligently did not convey any response thereto.  Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 namely M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Central Bank of India respectively, did not contest although notice was duly served, but no relief was prayed from their end.  Subsequent to the letter dt. 30.4.09 calling upon the Respondents to settle the claim and abide by the judgement and order of this Commission, the Respondents apparently chose not to take any action, when the Respondent Nos. 3, 7, 4 were approached regarding settlement of the claim and for other points of compliance, but no heed was paid to such request.  Thus, being hit by deliberate non-compliance of the judgement and order of this State Commission, the Decree Holder filed this Execution Application seeking claim on account of loss of stock as per Bank Statement for Rs. 29,63,171/- with loss of furniture and fittings in the shop amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and cost of Rs. 25,000/- totaling Rs. 30,38,171/- and with interest thereon for the period from January’06 to April, 30, 2009 with quarterly rests totaling Rs. 19,12,000/-, thus the grand total being Rs. 49,50,171/-.  Stating that the Decree Holder was further entitled to interest @ 15% from May’09 till realization of the entire claim, a prayer was made for arrest and detention of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, they being primarily responsible for settlement of the claim.  A direction was also sought for to the local police authority so that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are arrested and lodged in local jail with intimation to this Commission so that law could take its own course.

          The Respondents/Judgement Debtors namely National Insurance Co. and others entered appearance and stated inter alia that firstly, in the order of the State Commission in Case No. SC/44/O/2007 there was a simple direction that the Insurance Co. should reconsider the claim of the Decree Holder within 90 days, which was actually done and a joint meeting was called for when the Decree Holders refused to attend.  In the original complaint, the JDrs pointed out, there was no stipulation of the amount of loss and as such, quantification of the loss under Para-6 of the execution petition was absurd.  Further contending that there was a direction of payment of Rs. 500/- per day in default of payment in the event the amount of compensation for Rs. 25,000/- is not paid within 90 days, there was no other direction on the JDrs and thus the prayer made in the execution proceedings was misconceived and should be dismissed in limini with exemplary cost.  Referring to the allegations made in Para 7 & 10 of the Execution Petition the JDrs contended that these have no merit whatsoever and should be rejected with exemplary cost, being in the nature of harassing and speculative.  Reiterating that there was no deliberate or wilful violation of the State Commission’s judgement and order it was submitted that the Respondents hold this Commission in high esteem and there was no effort or intention of any wilful disregard of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission.

          In course of hearing of the execution case the Execution Petitioner reiterated his claim as in the Execution Petition and argued in favour of the prayer made therein alleging wilful disregard of the judgement and order by the Respondents/JDrs.

          The JDrs/Respondents in their submission sated that in terms of the said order the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 approached Mr. Arup Kr. Saha, Partner, M/s. Ramkrishna Saha, with Cheque No. 357839 dt. 24.9.09 of United Bank of India for Rs. 25,000/- under covering letter with a request for settlement of the claim, which he refused to accept.  Subsequently, Sri C.S.Saha, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. Ramkrishna Saha, approached the JDrs and a meeting was held on 6.9.09 followed by another meeting on 12.11.09 and thereafter Cheque No. 149796 dt. 19.11.09 for an amount of Rs. 4,03,839/- was issued, which included Rs. 3,08,339/- as full and final settlement of the claim and an amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with cost of Rs. 5,000/- for the period from 6.7.09 to 23.11.09, and was handed over to the concerned Central Bank of India, Mathabhanga Branch, in full and final compliance of the order dt. 6.3.09 of Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, Kolkata.  Contending that in this way the judgement and order of the State Commission as in Case No. SC/44/O/07 was fully complied with under due intimation to all concerned and hence, the execution case was sought to be dismissed. 

          The Execution Petitioner filed a rejoinder thereto reiterating earlier submissions and harped on the point that the JDrs/Respondents squarely failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission in its spirit and finding, when insurance claim of the Execution Petitioner was dealt with in a manner most improper and in violation of principles of natural justice and did not also appreciate the findings of the Commission at Page-6, Para-(B) of the order relating to the extent of loss suffered by the petitioner and thereby failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not making any profit out of the settlement.  Thus, it sought appropriate direction to meet the ends of justice and settle the only dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

DISCUSSION

A.      We have carefully gone through the records as also the documents filed by respective parties and heard them in detail as well.  The judgement and order as was passed by this Commission in S.C. Case No. 44/O/07 there were two ingredients in the operative part of the order namely (1) there was a direction  for settlement of the claim of the DHr/Complainant within a period of 90 days from the date of the judgement and order and (2) there was no quantification and/or any direction as to the amount/component of the claim or part thereof.  Therefore, the execution petitioner’s contention as to the quantum of settlement offered on the claim or on its alleged inadequacy/ impropriety is not an issue at this stage and, therefore, the contention of the execution petitioner in such regard stands rejected.

B.      As for the quantum of compensation and interest component allowed in the judgement and order for the period specified therein, we find that this has also been complied with strictly and correctly by the JDrs and, therefore, the submissions by the DHr on this aspect also is wholly without any substance or merit.  Accordingly, we are of the view that the entire amount as decreed in the judgement and order of this Commission being paid by the JDrs to the appropriate authority the Respondents/JDrs have complied with the judgement and order of this Commission in Case No. 44/O/07 and the DHr’s prayers in the execution petition are wholly unsustainable and without any logical basis and thus the same is liable to be dismissed.

O R D E R

          The execution petition is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.