KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Malda on 19/05/2022 Vide order no. 87 in case no. EA/02/2012.

Brief facts of the appellant’s case, is that the Ld. DCDRF, Malda had passed an order directing the respondent for an award of Rs. 8,29,000/- (Eight lakhs twenty-nine thousand) only, along with Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) only, totaling to Rs. 8,31,000/- (Eight lakhs thirty-one thousand) only, payable to the appellant/complainant within thirty days from 11/01/2012, failing which interest @9% on the entire amount would be levied, till recovery, in Malda D.F Original Case No. 25/2010. But as the respondent, failed to comply with the order, the appellant preferred an execution case being No. EA/02/2012. The respondent preferred an appeal, before the Hon’ble State Commission Kolkata, being No. FA/939/2012, but the same was dismissed. The respondents and then preferred a revision against the order of the Hon’ble SCDRC, Kolkata, before the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, being Revision Petition 3811 of 2013. At the stage of admission, the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, directed the respondent to remit Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only, to the appellant for meeting travel and also issued direction for stay, subject to depositing 50% of the amount, awarded by original order along with the interest, with the Ld. DCDRF, Malda, within four weeks from 01/11/2013. The respondent deposited erroneous DD No. 339688 dated 14/11/2013 on 03/12/2013 and after rectification of the erroneous DD filed fresh DD being No. 704438 dated 29/11/2014 on 01/12/2014. Subsequently, the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, dismissed the Revision Petition being No. 3811 of 2013 on merit on 22/10/2018. There after the Ld. DCDRC, allowed the appellant on 26/09/2019 to received Rs. 7,14,183/- (Seven lakhs fourteen thousand one hundred eighty-three) only, on 31/08/2021, the appellant was further allowed to receive Rs. 4,82,400/- (Four lakhs eighty-two thousand four hundred) only and Rs. 84,484/- (Eighty-four thousand four hundred eighty-four) only and dropped the execution proceedings vide the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed this instant appeal on the ground, that Ld. DCDRC, Malda, failed to appreciate the order passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC, and thereby erred while passing the impugned order.

At the time of final hearing, it was argued that the appellant was entitled to further interest for the amount deposited as per the direction of the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi.

Ld. Advocate for the respondent also submitted that this Commission had to decide whether the appellant was entitled to such interest.

 Heard, perused and considered.

The admitted position in the case is that, the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, had issued a direction for deposit of the 50%, of the awarded amount along with interest on 01/11/2013. Therefore, after hearing both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record it transpires that only a short question needs to be answered, as to whether the deposit made as per the direction of the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, is to be levied with interest or not.

 The Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, directed the respondent to deposit the 50% of the awarded amount on 01/11/2013 and after the subsequent dismissal of the Revision Petition 3811 of 2013, on 22/10/2018, it was the bounden duty of the respondent to have prayed for necessary direction for refunding the deposited amount, as the respondent had preferred the revision. But nothing of the sort had been done by the respondents, for which the appellant should not be held responsible and deprived.  On the contrary, the Ld. DCDRC, Malda, treated the same to be deposits towards satisfaction of the awarded amount and erroneously claimed that the instant appellant, was at fault to not have claimed the deposited amount. It should be understood that Hon’ble NCDRC, had issued the above directions for depositing the 50% of the awarded amount with interest merely as a security deposit and not towards the satisfaction of the awarded amount. That apart, the above amount could not possibly be handed over to the appellant prior to the disposal of the revision petition, pending before the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, for which reason the deposited amount cannot be held to be treated as deposits towards satisfying the awarded amounts and for this the appellant should not be penalized.  Hence, on this ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The respondent in the instant case is therefore, liable to pay interest @9% on the 50% amount of the awarded amount, from the date of order i.e., 01/11/2013, passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, in Revision Petition 3811 of 2013 till the date of withdrawal, that is on 31/08/2021.

 As a result, the instant appeal succeeds,

It, is therefore

ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest but with no costs. The respondent of this case is directed to comply with the directions as mentioned in the body of the judgment.

Copy of this order be handed free of cost to both parties.

Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Malda, for necessary compliance.