Chandigarh

DF-II

EA/2/2022

Beant Singh Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarita Sood, Chief Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Execution Application No. of C.C. No.384 of 2018	:	02 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	10.01.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	12.09.2023

         

                            

 

 

 

Beant Singh Arora son of Late Sh.Raghubir Singh, R/o House NO.5099/3, Category III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh

………..Decree Holder/Applicant

 

Versus

1]  Sarita Sood, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, SCO No.117-119, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager.

2]  Ramesh Parmar, Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO No.6, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager.

   ….. JDs/OPs

 

BEFORE: MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,      PRESIDENT

                 MR.S.K.SARDANA,               MEMBER

         

Present       :         Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for the DH

Sh.Nitin Gupta, Counsel for JD No.1.

None for JD No.2

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.),LLM, PRESIDENT

 

           The brief facts of the present Execution Application are that Decree Holder filed it under Section 27 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for punishing the responsible officials of Respondents for not complying with the directions of this Hon’ble Forum passed in order dated 11.03.2019 and as modified in order dated 28.10.2021 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

2]       The DH submitted that CC No.384 of 2018 was accepted by this Hon’ble Forum and directed the Respondent No.3 – Canara Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant/applicant on account of mental harassment and agony and directed the Respondent NO.2-ICICI bank to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 12.06.2001 till the date of payment.  The complaint against Respondent No.1 was dismissed.

 

3]       The Canara Bank and ICICI Bank challenged the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Forum before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in two separate Appeals (FA. No.75 of 2019 & FA. No.103 of 2019 respectively).

         In FA No.75 of 2019, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh had issued notice subject to the Canara Bank depositing Rs.5 lacs (by deducting Rs.25,000/- deposited as statutory amount of filing Appeal) and the said amount was kept in the fixed deposit.   

 

4]       In another Appeal filed by ICICI Bank (FA No.103 of 2019) the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh had issued ‘Notice’ subject to deposit of Rs.1.50 lacs (by deducting Rs.25,000/- deposited as Statutory amount of filing appeal) by ICICI and the said amount was kept in the fixed deposit.

 

5]       On 28.10.2021 the above Appeals were finally decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.  The Appeal No.75/2019 of Canara Bank was partly allowed to the extent that the compensation of Rs.5 lacs so imposed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh on Canara Bank was reduced to Rs.2 lacs.  The Appeal No.103/2019 titled by ICICI Bank was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2021.

 

6]       The Decree Holder alleged that only Canara Bank has partly complied with the directions so made in Orders of the Hon’ble District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh and Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh to the extent that payment of Rs.2 lacs has been made to the applicant/complainant on 10.12.2021 without making payment of any amount on account of interest.  So, the payment was made after period of 45 months instead of 30 days as per Order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Hon’ble District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh and further modified by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh vide order dated 28.10.2021.  

 

        On the other hand, the ICICI Bank has not complied with the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Hon’ble District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh and order dated 28.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (Annexure A-2).

 

         The Applicant submitted that ICICI Bank has to pay the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs with interest @9% p.a. and as on date i.e. 10.1.2022 as per the order Annexure A-1 and A-2, an amount of Rs.4,07,200/- has accrued towards Respondent No.2 which includes an amount of Rs.1.5 lacs and interest @9% p.a. on the above said amount from 12.6.2001 till date i.e. 10.1.2022 (the date of filing the present Execution Application).  

 

         The Applicant further submitted that on the other hand Respondent No.1 is liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.2 lacs for paying the amount after a huge delay on 10.12.2021.

 

         Lastly the Applicant submitted that the above named officials of the Canara bank and ICICI Bank have invited the penal action against them under the provisions of Section 27 of The Consumer protection Act, 1986 and are liable to be punished by this Hon’ble Forum and prayed that Respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be summoned and punished for non-complying the orders Annexure A-1 passed by this Hon’ble Forum. 

 

7]       The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh vide its order dated 27.4.2022 passed in Misc. Application No.998/2021 in F.A.No.A/75/2019 titled as Canara Bank vs. Beant Singh Arora, has disposed of the Appeal with a direction to District Commission to pass an order with regard to refund of this amount lying deposited with this Commission as per the prayer of the Decree Holder.  In case, the JD place on record the entire amount before the Executing Court, then this amount be refunded to Canara Bank.

 

8]       In order to comply with it, information was sought from the Concerned Office and it was observed from the information provided by Office of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh that “in compliance with this Commission order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Appeal No.75/2019 titled as Canara Bank Vs. Beant Singh Arora an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited on 29.5.2019 by Canara Bank/Respondent No.1 and in Appeal No.103/2019 titled as ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Beant Singh Arora an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- have been deposited on 04.07.2019 by Appellant ICICI Bank.

 

9]       It is observed that the complainant received an amount of Rs.2 lacs on 10.12.2021 from Canara Bank as per DH/Complainant own pleading in Para No.10 of this Execution Application No.2/2022.

 

10]      It is observed that the payment of Rs.2,79,088.06 by way of Demand Draft No.514252, dated 07.02.2022 was received by Sh.Beant Singh Arora, (complainant/DH) on 15.03.2022 from ICICI Bank (Copy of Demand Draft along with receipt bearing the signature of the complainant/DH is placed on record as Annexure C-A) as per directions of order dated 11.3.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh (Annexure A-3). 

   

11]      The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh or the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh did not award any rate of interest on the awarded amount of Rs.2 lacs vide its decision/order dated 11.03.2019 and 28.10.2021 respectively.  Whereas JD (Canara bank) made the payment of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant on 10.12.2021.  Hence, the payment is made by the Canara Bank within a very reasonable time from the date of order dated 28.10.2021 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh. Therefore, JD (Canara Bank) has deposed off the liability within a reasonable time period.  It is a settled principle of law that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.  Once the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh has not awarded any rate of interest on awarded amount of Rs.2 lacs then Executing Court cannot sake JD to pay the same. If DH/Complainant had any grievance against that order then they should have exercised their legal right by way of filing Revision/Appeal against the concerned ‘orders’. Once complainant/DH did not exercised his legal right now they cannot ask for the same.

 

12]      Now coming to payment of R.1.50 lakh along with interest @9% per annum.  The JD (ICICI Bank made payment of Rs.2,79,088.16 to Mr.Beant Singh Arora (complainant/DH) by way of Demand Draft No.514252 dated 07.02.2022 which was duly received by the (complainant/Decree Holder) on 15.03.2022. (Copy of Demand Draft along with receipt bearing the signature of the complainant/DH is placed on record as   Annexure C-A).

 

13]      The complainant in Para No.10 of this Execution Application admitted that he has received an amount of Rs.2 lacs from Canara bank on 10.12.2021 but alleged that in order Annexure A-1 (District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh) so passed on 11.03.2019 direction was passed to pay the amount of compensation within a period of 30 days whereas the modified amount (in pursuance to order Annexure A-2 of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh) has been paid only on 10.12.2021 i.e. after a period of 45 months. The Decree Holder/Applicant, further pleaded that he is certainly entitled to interest and costs for paying the compensation after such a huge delay. 

         It is observed that in this context, applicant is certainly wrong because neither District Commission nor the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh awarded any rate of interest to the Decree Holder/Complainant/ Applicant.  Moreover, the material date is the date of order of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh when they have modified the order of this District Commission vide their order dated 28.10.2021 and OPs/JDs/Respondents complied with the order on 10.12.2021 (Canara Bank). Hence, the claim of the applicant for awarding rate of interest cannot be granted because Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree/order.  Though this present Execution Application qua JD No.1 Canara Bank deserves to be dismissed with cost yet taking a lenient view cost is not imposed upon the Complainant/DH.

 

         As far as direction of Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh vide order dated 11.03.2019 is concerned to JD No.2 (ICICI Bank) to pay Rs.1.50 lakh along with interest @9% per annum is concerned, it is observed that the payment of Rs.2,79,088.06 by way of Demand Draft No.514252, dated 07.02.2022 was received by Sh.Beant Singh Arora, (complainant/DH) on 15.03.2022 from ICICI Bank (Copy of Demand Draft along with receipt bearing the signature of the complainant/DH is placed on record as Annexure C-A).

         Thus, it is clear that the JD No.2 (ICICI Bank) paid only the interest amount of Rs.2,79,088/- to the Decree Holder/complainant, which accrued on the amount of Rs.1.50 lakh @9% per annum from 12.6.2001 till 15.03.2022 and partially disposed off their legal liability but main principal amount of Rs.1.50 lakh has not been paid/released to the complainant.

 

14]      Now coming to the amounts deposited by the JDs with the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, it is clear from the following Chart of payment, which is relevant:-

	Amount deposited by JD’s in Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh
Sr. No.		Deposited Amount	Date of Deposit	FD (Status)	By whom Deposited	Case in which amount deposited
1		25000	22-04-2019	Pending FDR No.38421889668	Canara Bank	A/75/2019
2		475000	29-05-2019	Pending FDR No.38541357512	Canara Bank	A/75/2019
3		25000	28-05-2019	Pending FDR No.38541356835	ICICI Bank	A/103/2019
4		125000	04-07-2019	Pending FDR No.38629116954	ICICI Bank	A/103/2019
Total		650000

 

15]      The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh vide its order dated 27.04.2022 in MA/998/2021 directed District Commission to pass an order with regard to refund of that amount lying deposited with that Commission as per the prayer of the Decree Holder.  In case the JDs place on record the entire amount before Executing Court then that amount be refunded to Canara Bank.

 

16]      Hence, in view of above mentioned direction of the Hon’ble Bench of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, the Office of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh is directed to release the amount to JD No.1 (Canara Bank), by mode of digital transaction after obtaining its account number, an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.4,75,000/- deposited on 22.4.2019 and 29.5.2019 respectively by JD No.1 (Canara Bank) in Case No.A/75/2019 Pending FDR No.38421889668 and FDR No.38541357512 respectively along with interest accrued upon it against proper receipt & identification after verification of the same and also to release the amount to the complainant, by mode of digital transaction after obtaining his account number, an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- (i.e. Rs.1.50 lakh) so deposited on 28.05.2019 and 04.07.2019 respectively by JD No.2 (ICICI bank) in Case No.A/103/2019 in Pending FDR No.38541356835 and FDR No.38629116954 respectively along with interest accrued upon it, against proper receipt & identification after verification of the same.

 

17]      Moreover, it is observed that the complainant has not filed Calculation sheets despite repeated interim orders of this Commission in this very Execution Application.

         Taking into consideration above discussion and findings, the present Execution Application of DH/Complainant stands disposed off in above terms.  No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.09.2023                             

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER