This application for issuance of a fresh cheque in favour of the Executive Engineer, M.C.P.H., Division No.2, Chandigarh has been filed by the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Chandigarh stating therein that F.A. No.411/2012 titled as SDO Water Supply Vs. Tarsem Chand and another, was decided by this Commission, on 14.01.2013. At the time of filing the appeal, the applicant/appellant had deposited two demand drafts bearing No.732670 dated 11.12.2012 for Rs.2500/- and No.078171 dated 03.12.2012 for Rs.3100/-, drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce It was further stated, in the application, that vide order dated 14.01.2013, the said appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum was set aside. It was further stated that cheque No.913293 dated 10.01.2014 in the sum of Rs.5859/-, in favour of the SDO Water Supply, W/S Sub Division No.4, Chandigarh was issued. It was further stated that it could not be deposited in the account of the Executive Engineer, M.C.P.H., Division No.2, Chandigarh who is vested with the powers of the DDO, whereas, the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, U.T., Chandigarh is not vested with those powers. Accordingly, the prayer, referred to above, was made.
2. We have heard Sh.Baldev Dass, Junior Engineer of the applicant/appellant and have gone through the record carefully.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that Sh.Tarsem Chand resident of House No.2221/B, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh filed C.C. No.171/2012 instituted on 07.03.2012, which was decided, in his favour, on 21.09.2012, by the concerned District Forum. In that complaint, the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh U.T. and the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.3, Sector 9, Chandigarh were the Opposite Parties.
4. Feeling aggrieved, F.A. No.360/2012 was filed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.3, Sector 9, Chandigarh and F.A.No.411 of 2012 was filed by Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, UT, Chandigarh.
5. Both the appeals were accepted vide order dated 14.01.2013. At the time of filing F.A.No.411 of 2012, the statutory amounts of Rs.2500/- and Rs.3100/- were deposited, by the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh U.T.
6. Since the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh U.T., was one of the Opposite Parties, in the main complaint, after acceptance of the appeal, he moved an application for the refund of the statutory amount, deposited, at the time of filing the appeal. That application was decided vide order 25.10.2013, which reads as under:-
“As per office report, no stay order or any other order has been received from the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi or any other court.
Sh.Baldev Dass, Junior Engineer has put in appearance and submitted his authority letter, which is taken on record.
This application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for refund of Rs.2500/- and Rs. 3100/- alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereon, deposited by the applicant/appellant, at the time of filing the appeal.
Sh.Baldev Dass, Junior Engineer has submitted that against the order dated 21.9.2012, passed by the District Forum, an appeal bearing No.411 of 2012 was filed on 12.12.2012, which was accepted by this Commission vide its common order dated 14.1.2013.
In view of the above, there is no legal impediment, in allowing the application, in the manner that a sum of Rs.2500/- and
Rs. 3100/- deposited by the applicant/appellant, at the time of filing the appeal, alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereon, shall stand refunded, in favour of the applicant/appellant, against valid receipt and on proper identification.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of charge”.
7. Ultimately, on the basis of the order dated 25.10.2013, account payee cheque No.913293 dated 10.01.2014 for refund of Rs.5859/- was issued in favour of the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Chandigarh as per the application moved by him. Since the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh U.T. was the appellant in F.A. No.411/2012, refund of the statutory amount deposited by him, at the time of filing the appeal, was required to be made in his favour and not in favour of the Executive Engineer. In these circumstances, the prayer made by the Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C.P.H, Sub Division No.4, Chandigarh, in the application, under disposal, being legally not maintainable, deserves to be declined.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the application, under disposal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The original cheque, which is enclosed with the application, is ordered to be returned to the applicant/appellant against valid receipt and on proper identification.
9. Though the order for release of the statutory amount was passed on 25.10.2013, yet the Office complied with the same on 10.01.2014 i.e. after a period of about 2-½ months. When Ms.Neelam Bartia, Junior Assistant of this Commission, was called, as to why, there was delay in complying with the order dated 25.10.2013, she stated that there was rush of work, and certain account matters were also be dealt with, as a result whereof, she could not deal with this matter, immediately, after passing of the aforesaid order.
10. The explanation, orally furnished by the official, is wholly and completely unsatisfactory. The work, in this Commission, to be dealt with by this official, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be heavy and, as such, the concocted explanation furnished by the official, concerned is rejected. However, she is strictly warned to be carefully in future.
11. Certified copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of charge.
12. The Secretary-cum-Registrar of this Commission is directed to ensure compliance of the order, with quick dispatch, and report compliance within two days.
