HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) challenging the impugned order No. 6 dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) in connection with Execution Application No. EA/31/2022 arising out of complaint case No. RBT/CC/ 115/120 filed by the respondent / decree holder by which the appellants were directed to make further payment of the balance decretal amount.

2. The short fact of the case is that the respondent / decree holder filed a complaint case being No. CC/ 115 / 2020 against the appellants / Jdrs on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants / Jdrs in a consumer dispute.

3. The said complaint case was allowed and the appellants / Jdrs did not comply with the order passed by the Learned District Commission below.  Thereafter, the respondent / decree holder filed an Execution Application being No. EA/31/2022 before the Learned District Commission below. The appellants / Jdrs appeared before the Learned District Commission below and made a part payment of the decretal amount. As such, the Learned District Commission below was pleased to fix on 30.03.2023 for making payment of the balance amount. On 30.03.2023 Jdrs paid a cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the decree holder and the decree holder received the same. Learned District Commission below fixed the date on 18/05/2023 for making a further payment of the balance decretal amount by the impugned order.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the appellants / Jdrs have preferred this appeal.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has urged that Learned Commission below has committed an error by passing the impugned order. He has further urged that Learned District Commission below failed to ascertain the financial status of one of the appellants, Mr. Sourav Das and his age. He has further urged that one of the appellants, Mr. Sourav Das has low income and also has sick dependant mother. He is the only earning member to maintain the livelihood. He is facing financial hardship for giving the compensation amount and the litigation cost. He has further urged that one of the appellants, Mr. Sourav Das could not arrange the awarded amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lakh) only due to his low income. He earns only Rs.15,000/- per month from a private company. So, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the record it appears to us that the complainant / decree holder filed a consumer complaint being No. RBT/CC/115/2020 against the appellants / Jdrs and the said complaint case was allowed. The appellants / Jdrs did not comply with the order passed by the Learned District Commission below. The order passed by the Learned District Commission below has not been set aside, modified or varied by any higher Forum and, therefore, the said order passed by the Learned District Commission below in connection with RBT/CC/115/2020 is still in force. So, the appellants / Jdrs are liable to comply with the order passed by the Learned District Commission below.

7. It appears to us that the appellants / Jdrs have partly complied with the order passed by the Learned District Commission below and Learned District Commission below was pleased to fix a date for making further payment of the balance decretal amount. Therefore, we find that the order passed by the Learned District Commission below calls for no interference by this Commission and, as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limini without being admitted.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.

10. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.