Execution 20 2017

order No.28

Dated 30.01.2024

            Today is fixed for order in respect of the petition dated 18.10.22 filed by Jdr Nos. 1 and 2.  Ld. Advocate for the Dhr is present. Ld. Advocate for the Jdr Nos.1 and 2 is also present. Record is put up for order. Perused the petition dated18.10.2022 file by Jdr Nos. 1 and 2. One Santosh Pramanik filed the said petition as proprietor of Saroda Construction. By filing the said petition Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for following reliefs .

that the direction given by the Ld. Commission in its final order/judgment dated 22.08.2014 in complaint case No.CC/476/2013 with regard to the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the State Welfare Fund and punitive damages of Rs. 300/- per day by each judgment debter Nos. 1 and 2 to the Dhr is completely without jurisdiction, unexecutable and nulity in the eye of law and Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 shall have no obligation to pay any amount whatsoever under the head of ‘punitive damages’.

 that the interest at the rate of 15% p.a is completely without jurisdiction unexecutable and nullity in the eye of law and the same be modified to the extent of 9% p. a as per law of the land.

On perusal of the record we find that Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 annexed the copy of judgment passed by this commission on 22.08.2011 in connection with C.C.No. 476/2023. We find that this commission passed the following order. ‘ that the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos.1 and2 with cost of Rs.. 8,000/- only payable to the complainant by the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 from the date of this order within one month from the date of this order and dismissed against O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 without any cost.

that the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the entire sum of Rs. 97,800/- only along with the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e. from 30.05.2011 to till its realization within one month from the date of this order.

that O.P. Nos.1 to 5 being the developers jointly and severally are also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only to the State Consumer Welfare Fund as penalty for adopting unfair trade practice within one month from the date of this order.

In the event of non plan of portion of the executable order by any of the O.Ps within the above specified period, the said O.Ps shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- only per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages out of which 50% shall be paid to the complainant and rest 50% shall be deposited by the O.Ps. to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Thereafter Dhr files this execution case on 14.02.2017. On perusal on record we find that against the aforesaid said judgment Jdr Nos.1and 2 filed an appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC Vide No. A/417/17. Till the date neither of the parties produced any order of the Hon’ble SCDRC in connection with the aforesaid appeal case No.A/417/17.

Ld. Advocate for the Dhr cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1977) 2SCC page 662 Sunder Das-Vs- Ramprakash said decision was relating to Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and Section 47 of CPC. Section 47 CPC has no application in the Consumer Commission. Accordingly we find that said decision is not applicable in the present case.

Ld. Advocate for the Jdr Nos.1and 2 also filed another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 1 SCC 4 General Motors India Vs- President Ashok Ramnic Lal Total and others. We have carefully gone through the said decision. He also filed another decision reported in (2020) 15 SCC 613. We have carefully gone through the same. He also filed another decision reported in 2022 1 CPR (NC)467. We have carefully gone through the same. He also cited another decision reported in (2001 6(SCC) 534 Said decision was relating to Section 47of CPC. As section 47of CPC has no application in the District Commission so we think that said decision is not applicable in the present case.

Contd/-2

E.A. 20 /2017

: 2 :

He also cited another decision of Hon’ble SCDRC (unreported) (Vide first No. 220/2014. On perusal of record we find that Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the final order before the Hon’ble SCDRC which registered as A/417/17. During pendency of the said appeal Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the final order of this commission dated 22.08.2014 before this commission by filing the aforesaid petition dated 18.10.2022 which registered as M.A. No. 27/2024.

It is known to everybody that final order passed by District Commission cannot be challenged by any party before the said commission by filing a separate petition. But Jdr Nos. 1and 2 filed the aforesaid petition before this commission challenging the final order passed by this commission and prayed for aforesaid relief which cannot be granted by this commission under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or any other law of the land.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that aforesaid petition dated 18.10.22  is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Jdr Nos. 1and 2by filing the said petition misused the valuable  time of commission. Accordingly we think that a heavy amount of cost should be imposed against them.S

In the result petition dated 18.10.22 fails.

Hence,

             Ordered

                      that the petition dated 18.10.2022 filed by Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by Jdr Nos. 1 and 2 in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this commission by way of cash or demand draft.

Miscase No.27/2024 is thus disposed of.

To 29.02.2024 for filing the order of the Hon’ble SCDRC.

President                                                                                            Member