KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 183/2017

JUDGMENT DATED:12/07/2024

(Against the Order in E.A. 34/2012 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT/ OPPOSITE PARTY & JUDGMENT DEBTOR :

Enathu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.2529 (Rep. by it            

Secretary), Enathu.P.O., Adoor – 691 526.

                             (By Adv. T.H.Lawrence)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & DECREE HOLDER:

Ramachandran Nair, Koikkalazhikathu Vadakkethil, Enathu.P.O., Adoor – 691 526.

                  (By Adv.G.M.Idiculla)

                                    JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant was the judgment debtor in EA.34/2012 in CC.51/2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta [District Commission in short].  EA.34/2012 was filed by the Complainant in CC.51/2005 for causing execution of the order in CC.51/2005 as modified by this Commission as per the judgment in Appeal 719/2011.  As per the judgment in appeal the order passed by the District Commission was modified with a direction to pay interest @18% for 60 months of the deposited amount and for the balance deposits the interest to be paid is @ 9%.  

2. Apart from this appeal the appellant herein had also filed another revision petition before this Commission as RP.17/2016 which was dismissed as per the order dated 28/06/2016.  Appellant had also filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court WP(C) No.12027/2023 C.  The Hon’ble High Court had dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the judgment debtor to explore the alternative adjudicatory remedies available.  On the culmination of the aforesaid proceedings the District Commission after hearing both sides over ruled the objection raised by the appellant and found that the statement of account filed by the decree holder was in tune with the order which was sought to be executed.  Accordingly the statement of account filed by the decree holder was accepted.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal has been filed. 

3. Heard the counsel for both sides.

4. The records from the District Commission were called for and perused.  On evaluating the contention advanced by the appellant in the appeal memorandum it could be seen that the appellant would seek for further adjudication with regard to the rate of interest to be paid which fact was full and finally answered by the District Commission as confirmed in the order in the appeal. If the appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission they ought to have approached the National Commission for redressal of their grievances.  The counsel for the appellant had filed notes of argument by reiterating the earlier contentions raised at the stage of trial.  There is no confusion in the statement of account filed by the Decree holder.  The order passed by the Appellate Court is specific that the interest @ 18% should be paid to the complainant for the deposited amount for 60 months which has been clearly calculated in the statement of account filed by the decree holder.  Regarding the subsequent deposit the Appellate Court had directed the judgment debtor to disburse the interest @ 9%.  So there is no confusion in the calculation.  The appellant wanted a further reopening of the matter and such an exercise is not possible at the stage of execution.  The executing court cannot go behind the decree.  We could not find an illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission.  The appeal lacks merits. 

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  Parties shall bear their respective cost.                                     

AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER