KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 89/2022
ORDER DATED: 24.01.2023
(Against the Order in EA 1/2020 in C.C. 60/2013 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Administrative Office, 101-105, Shiv Chambers, Sector-11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai represented by BM, STFC, Kottayam.
- Branch Manager, M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., No. 161/130/C, Geetha Commercial Complex, Near YMCA, M.C. Road, Kottayam-686 001.
- Branch Manager, M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Nanthiyathu Plaza, College Junction, Pathanamthitta-689 645 represented by BM, STFC, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Somashekharan Nair, Kanipparampil House, Kanjeetukara P.O., Ayroor Village, Ranny Taluk, Pin-689 616.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This revision arises out of execution proceedings. The Judgment Debtors/opposite parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (District Forum for short) are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein is the Decree Holder/complainant in C.C. 60/2013.
2. The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the revision petitioners. The short facts necessary for our purpose are summarised as follows:
The respondent/complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 70,000/- from the revision petitioners/opposite parties for the purpose of purchase of a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-09/C-6958. He defaulted payment of the monthly instalments. The revision petitioners issued notice to the respondent calling upon him to close the said loan account. The respondent thereupon approached the revision petitioners and entered into an amicable settlement. As per the settlement the respondent was directed to remit a lumpsum amount of Rs. 70,000/- as final settlement of the dues. Accordingly the respondent paid the entire amount on 06.12.2011. But the revision petitioners did not issue the NOC to him. In the mean time the respondent has sold the vehicle to another person. Since the NOC was not issued by the revision petitioners, the purchaser was not able to change the ownership in the R. C Book after removing the endorsement regarding hypothecation. As a result, the purchaser was not able to use the vehicle. According to the respondent, the above act of the revision petitioners caused financial loss and mental agony to him. Therefore he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking redressal of his grievances.
3. The complaint was contested by the revision petitioners. According to them, the respondent had not discharged the entire debt due to the company. He had not approached the revision petitioners for the issue of NOC. According to them, the vehicle was still an asset of the company and stood hypothecated to them. The allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice was denied.
4. The parties went to trial on the above pleadings and adduced evidence both oral and documentary. The District Forum considered the evidence on record and found that the omission of the revision petitioners to issue NOC to the respondent was an illegal act. Therefore, the complaint was allowed directing the revision petitioners to issue NOC of the respondent’s vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 09/C-6958 within twenty days from the date of receipt of the order along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-, failing which the respondent was allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the revision petitioners with 10% interest from the date of the order till the date of realization of the whole amount.
5. The order of the District Forum was challenged by the revision petitioners before this Commission in Appeal No. 673/2013. As per the judgment dated 26.02.2015, this Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
6. The aggrieved respondent challenged the judgment of this Commission before the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1471/2015. As per the judgment dated 28.05.2019 the National Commission allowed the revision and set aside the judgment of this Commission, restoring the order of the District Forum. Paragraph 13 of the said order reads as under:
“13. In view of the above, R.P. No. 1471 of 2015 is allowed. Consequently, the order of the State Commission dated 26.02.2015 is set aside and order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the District Forum is upheld except with the change that instead of 10% interest per annum as ordered on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- if the NOC is not supplied, the interest of 7% shall be payable by the respondents/opposite parties. It is clarified that this NOC shall be only in respect of vehicle bearing No. KL-09/C-6958. “
7. The case of the revision petitioners is that, after the judgment of the National Commission they decided to comply with the direction of the District Forum and on 24.08.2019 an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was deposited by them along with NOC before the District Forum in compliance with the decree. Thus, it is contended that, as on 24.08.2019 they had complied with the direction to the decree. According to them, the amount as well as NOC was collected by the respondent.
8. Thereafter, on 17.01.2020 the respondent initiated execution proceedings by filing E.A. No. 01/2020 contending that since the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- was not deposited within twenty days of the direction of the District Forum dated 19.10.2013 he was entitled to be paid Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with 7% interest. The total amount thus claimed is Rs. 87,335/-. The revision petitioners opposed the petition contending that since the compensation and costs ordered to be paid had been received by the respondent it was not open to him to claim the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest. The said objection was considered by the District Forum and rejected as per the order under revision.
9. According to the revision petitioners, the amount that was ordered to be paid by the District Forum had not been paid by them only because they had preferred an appeal against the same before this Commission. They had also succeeded in the appeal and the order of the District Forum was set aside. However, the National Commission restored the order of the District Forum. They have immediately paid the amount, as ordered by the District Forum. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, there was no lapse on the part of the revision petitioners in complying with the order of the District Forum. The revision petitioners have only availed their statutory remedy which was the legitimate right of any litigant. Therefore, it is contended that it was unjust to penalize them with the liability to pay the interest that was ordered by the District Forum. It is contended that there is no such direction in the order of the National Commission also.
10. Heard. It is no doubt true that it is the right of every litigant to challenge an adverse order before the higher Forum in exercise of his right of appeal. The revision petitioners cannot be found fault with for the said conduct. However, what the District Forum is engaged in at present is the task of executing the order of the District Forum as confirmed by the National Commission. It is trite that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore, the crucial question to be considered is what exactly is the direction in the decree sought to be executed. There is no dispute regarding the terms of the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum has ordered that if the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of 1,000/- were not paid within twenty days from the date of receipt of the order, the respondent would be entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the revision petitioners with 10% interest from the date of the order till realization of the whole amount. The said order has been modified by the National Commission only to a limited extent, as follows:
“13. In view of the above, R.P. No. 1471 of 2015 is allowed. Consequently, the order of the State Commission dated 26.02.2015 is set aside and order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the District Forum is upheld except with the change that instead of 10% interest per annum as ordered on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- if the NOC is not supplied, the interest of 7% shall be payable by the respondents/opposite parties. It is clarified that this NOC shall be only in respect of vehicle bearing No. KL-09/C-6958. “
11. Consequently the order of this Commission dated 26.02.2015 is set aside and the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the District Forum is upheld with the only change that instead of 10% interest per annum as ordered on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- if the NOC was not supplied, the interest of 7% shall be payable by the respondents.
12. It is clear from the above that the order of the District Forum was not altered by the National Commission in any manner except to reduce the rate of interest on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to 7%. Admittedly, the NOC was issued by the revision petitioners only on 24.08.2019. The order of the District Forum is dated 19.10.2013. The revision petitioners had not issued the NOC or paid the compensation and costs ordered within the time limit stipulated by the District Forum. Therefore the second part of the order came into operation and the respondent became entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 50,000/- ordered to be paid, with the reduced interest of 7% from the date of order till the date of realization.
13. The above being the legal position, the contention of the revision petitioners that by the payment made by them on 24.08.2019 the decree stood satisfied cannot be accepted. The said contention has rightly been rejected by the District Forum.
For the above reasons, we find no error of jurisdiction or infirmity in the order under revision. This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
jb
