Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President
Heard Ms.Sumedha Sawant-Advocate for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.H.Yadav-Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Yadav files vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
This revision petition is directed as against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in an Execution application no.140/2011, which has arisen from the consumer complaint no.523/2007. Respondent had filed consumer complaint no.523/2007. Said complaint was allowed and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in the consumer complaint, original opponent/Union of Bank of India had preferred Appeal no.190/2009 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State Commission has decided the said appeal by order dated 13/04/2010. Appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed in consumer complaint was quashed and set aside subject to payment of cost of `10,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent. Complaint was remitted back with a direction to take the documents produced before the State Commission on record and the forum was directed to dispose of the complaint fresh as early as possible within two months. All issues were allowed to be re-agitated. An amount of `10,000/- was not paid and, therefore, complainant/respondent filed an execution application no.140/2011 to execute the original order passed in the consumer complaint. At that point of time demand draft was tendered however, demand draft was not accepted and it was returned back. Therefore, this revision petition has been filed.
In fact original orders passed in the consumer complaint were set aside and they have merged into an appellate order. Only payment of cost was condition. However, that was not complied with and, therefore, the complainant was entitled to recover the amount of `10,000/- and it was accordingly tendered also, though not within time. Therefore, order for return of demand draft passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not correct order and requires to be set aside.
However, we also take a note that Union Bank of India is a body which should have immediately obeyed the orders. In fact subject to the cost of `10,000/- fresh opportunity was offered to them to agitate issues before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and in order to avail said opportunity, cost should have been immediately paid. However, there appears to be delay and protracting practice with the Union of India and, therefore, bankers have failed to deposit the amount of cost. What we find that if bank had to recover such type of amount, they without giving any notice to the customer, deduct the amount from their account with no hesitation and within overnight. Only when they are supposed to obey the orders, they have difficulties and difficulties. This is a tendency to harass the consumer and, therefore, even though we allow revision petition, we direct that initial cost of `10,000/- shall be deposited within 15 days before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and in addition to that they shall pay by way of cost of this revision petition `5000/-. That amount shall be also deposited within a period of 15 days before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. If the order is not complied with within stipulated period, it will carry interest @ 18% per month till they obey the orders.
Pronounced on 19th September, 2011.
