The fact as alleged by the complainant in short is that the Ops being manufacturer of “TATA Nano” Car have given alluring introductory offers/proposals to the  intending  purchaser through electronic media and newspapers advertisement and seeing the said alluring

Contd….P/2.

-:2:-

offers/proposals of Ops, the complainant decided to purchase “TATA Nano” Car for his own use and occupation and for this complainant collected application form from Op No. 2 and also leaflet giving assurance to provide advantages to the intending purchasers. The complainant filled up and deposited the said form being No. 113166293 with OP No. 2 and received the same with seal & signature.

Thereafter complainant has expressed to OP No. 2 that if they will provide financier for purchasing the booked car then it will be easier for him. Thereafter official of OP No. 2 took initiative and managed with State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch for financing.

After it on 07-06-2009 OP No. 1 sent an email and provided Unique Identification No. 9jh9d8 for booking of Tata Nano Car. It was also mentioned that an interest @8% per annum will be paid by OP No. 1 to the complainant on booking amounts as per their terms and conditions. Thereafter OP No. 4 has accepted the booking made by complainant and allotted one “Tata Nano” CX Champagne Gold BS 3 Car to the complainant with assurance to provide booked car within January to March 2011 through OP No.2.

Thereafter complainant visited the office of OP No. 1 for further process and found OP No. 2 has issued Quotation on 08/07/2009 in the name of State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch. The State Bank of India sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- as car loan and issued a letter to the complainant on 28/07/2009. Thereafter complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by Demand Draft in favour of OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 on 09/10/2009.

It has been further alleged by complainant that on 19/10/2009, OP No. 4 again issued a letter to the complainant to provide within October to December 2010 and also issued a letter on 24/10/2009 that complainant will get further interest on booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- @ 8.5% per annum for  period of June to September 2009 and later a cheque was issued to complainant for amount  of Rs.2489.58/- on 04/11/2009 with a forwarding letter.

Thereafter OP No. 4 issued another letter  and  informed for rising of price of Tata Nano Car from Rs.1,56,797/- to Rs.1,63,009/- and instructed the complainant  to make  contact with OP No. 2 to deposit balance amount. 

That on instructions of OP No. 1 as well as OP No. 4 complainant paid balance amount of Rs.43,009/- to OP No. 2 by a cheque dt. 14/08/2010 which was enchased by OP No. 1.

Further on 13/08/2010 one Niraj Srivastava, Head-Car Product Group, of Tata Nano Ltd. issued a letter and confirmed that Tata Nano booked car is ready for delivery and told the complainant to keep contact with OP No. 2 for completing necessary formalities  and payment of balance amount and it was further mentioned that last quarter interest will be reimbursed till 31/08/2010 and OP No. 1 issued a cheque of Rs.4,248/-.

It has been further alleged that thereafter on several occasions complainant visited office of OP No. 2 for receiving booked Tata Nano Car but they avoided. The complainant made call to OP No. 1 then he advised

Contd….P/3.

-:3:-

to for wait for some time and told to be in touch with OP No. 2.

Thereafter complainant contacted on phone to OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4 but they were reluctant but complainant has to pay monthly installments of State Bank of India regularly.

At last complainant wrote a letter to OP No. 2 by registered post with A/D but with no good result. From the conduct of Ops complainant found that even taking total value of the booked car Ops have neglected and failed to delivered  booked Nano Car and have withhold amount of Rs.1,63,009/- and complainant suffered from mental pain and agony and also from use and enjoyment of booked car. Thus there are deficiency in service, illegal and unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of Ops. The cause of action arose on and from 18/04/2009 when complainant booked Tata Nano Car and on 13/08/2010 when delivery information was given and is continuing every day.

In the above mentioned circumstances complainant has prayed for payment of sum of Rs.1,63,009/- with 18% interest from 31.08.2010 till realization and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony & harassment and Rs.30,000/- as punitive damages and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

It has been further alleged by way of amendment that during pendency of this case complainant has came to know that Ops Nos. 1 to 4 most illegally, unauthorizely, arbitrarily behind the knowledge of the complainant have refunded back a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the financier directly i.e. OP No. 5 and said amount was credited  inthe account of complainant by OP No. 5 on 28.07.2012. As OP Nos. 1 to 4 have illegally kept amount of Rs.1,20,000/- till 20.12.20210, so complainant is entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum from 31.08.2010 to 20.12.2010 from OP Nos. 1 to 4 and is also entitled to get back sum of Rs.43,009/- from Ops No. 1 to 4 with interest @18% per annum from 14.08.2010 till its realization.

Further OP Nos. 1 to 4 have suo-moto illegally and arbitrarily without disclosing to complainant  have  cancelled the booking of complainant and have refunded booking  amount of Rs.1,20,000/- directly to OP No. 5, so it is unfair trade practice. So, OP Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.53,129/- together with accrued  interest thereon from 28.07.2009 till realization.

                    So further reliefs have been prayed to:-

1. Return back sum of Rs.43,009/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.08.2010 till realization from OP Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Payment for sum of Rs.53,129/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 28.07.2009 to 28.07.2012 from OP No. 1 to 4.
3. Payment of interest on amount of Rs.1,20,000/- @ 18% Per annum from 20.12.2010 to 28.07.2012 from OP No.5.

All the OPs have contested this case by filing their written versions.

The OP No. 2 Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd has challenged the complaint alleging that complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection

Contd….P/4.

-:4:-

Act, 1986. The complaint lodged is false and with imagination. The OP No. 2 is improper and unnecessary party, as all transaction have been made in between OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4. The OPNo. 2 never asked the complainant to get finance of the car from State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch.

In written statement OP Nos.  1, 3 & 4 have alleged that Tata Motor Limited is a renowned manufacturer of vehicles of Various types and after test drive vehicle are dispatched to authorized dealers, appointed on a “principal to principal” basis for sale of cars & vehicles. The complainant has paid booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for Tata Nano CX Champange Gold BS 3,as he intended to buy  on 09.10.2009 by a demand draft in favour of OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 and OP No. 4 had assured for delivery of vehicle and also for interest on booking amount. Thereafter OP No. 4 has informed on 15.07.2010 to complainant that price of vehicle has arisen from Rs. 1,57,797/- to 1,63,009/- and complainant paid  balance amount of Rs.43,009/- to OP No.2 by cheque and complainant got return of interest amount of Rs.4,248/- but did not got vehicle after 9 months then claim for return of entire amount is not tenable.

Further as relationship between Opposite Parties is Principal to Principal basis, so, OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4 cannot be held liable for any independent act of OP No. 2. As complainant admitted that vehicle was booked by way of financial assistance and vehicle was not delivered to complainant, so complainant is not a consumer. Even if vehicle could have been delivered to complainant then it was hypothecated to financer. It has been further alleged that when complainant signed the contract documents then he is bound by its terms and condition.

The complainant has not send any demand notice before the filing of the complaint against OPs, so complainant is required to be  dismissed as mandatory requirement under C.P. Act has not been complied. The allegations raised are triable appropriately before civil court, so this forum has no jurisdiction.

Further the opposite parties had all times acted as per policies laid down by the company and there is no fault on part of the OP No. 4. No cause of action has arose as alleged by complainant.

The OP No. 5 has also filed  written version wherein  it has been stated that after considering loan proposal of complainant a loan of Rs.1,51,000/- has been sanctioned  for purchase of car. The complainant availed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and has been depositing monthly installments till 04.02.2012.

In additional written version filed on 19.06.2013 the OP No. 5 has alleged that complainant has suppressed the material facts. The complainant on 28.07.2012 in writing has requested the OP No. 5 to credit the excess amount after liquidating his car loan a/c no. 3090027297 to his cash credit a/c No. 11168837548 in the name of M/S Sarkar Engineering Company.

The complainant is required to prove that this OP has charged a sum of Rs. 53,129/- as interest since the date of disbursement of loan

Contd….P/5.

-:5:-

till 28.07.2012. The complainant is not entitled to interest @18% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from 20.12.2010 to 28.07.2012 as alleged. This OP is not connected for delivery of car.

The OP No. 1 after submitting of the details of deposited amount of Rs. 7,39,80,000/- to the State Bank of India on 20.12.2010 against UNI No. 113166293 through a common RTGS payment being UTR No. HDFCH 10355348257 against 590 cases in aforesaid car loan account but in said complainant did not claim any interest from OP. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and it should be dismissed with cost.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS

Upon hearing both sides following points are required to be considered.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant has paid the amounts as alleged to OPs or not?
3. Whether complainant has declined or informed to not receive or cancel the booking of Tata Nano Car to OPs?
4. Whether OPs No. 1, 3 & 4 have cancelled the booking of Tata Nano Car of complainant suo moto or on request of complainant?
5. Whether OP No. 1, 3 & 4 have returned full amount paid by complainant to him or not?
6. Whether the complainant has given any letter dt. 28.07.2012 in writing to OP No. 5 to liquidate car loan account to his cash credit account in the name of M/s. Sarkar Engineering company?
7. Whether OP No. 2 has received amount of Rs.43,009/- on 14.08.2010 from complainant through cheque for Tata Motors Nano balance payment for himself?
8. Whether or not complainant is entitled to receive the interest on the amounts as alleged?
9. Is the complainant entitled for interest amounts as alleged?
10. Is there any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged?
11. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up for discussions together as each are inter related.

The complainant has filed following documents.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

The complainant has filed 15 documents as per list in support of his complaint which are as follows:

1. Application No. 113166293 for booking of Tata Nano Car with leaflet on 18.04.2009 which has been collected by complainant from OP No. 2 and deposited with State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch.
2. The loan sanctioned letter dt. 28.07.2009 for amount of Rs.1,51,000/- by State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch in favour of complainant.
3.  
4.  

3. One letter dt. 07.06.2009 issued by Tata Motors and one Unique Identification No. 9jh9d8 has been allotted to complainant in which it has been advised to convert the booking loan into auto loan.
4. Letter dt. 23.06.2009 issued by Nitin Seth, OP No. 4 to State Bank of India i.e. OP No.5 with information to complainant that Tata NANO CX-BS 3-CHAMPAGNE Gold has been allotted to complainant and it will be delivered between January to March 2011 through Bajla Motors, Siligurii, OP No. 2.
5. Letter dt. 19.10.2009 issued by Nitin Seth i.e. OP No. 4 to complainant that allotted Car by letter dt. 23.06.2009 will be delivered in between  October to December 2010 through Bajla Motors, Siliguri. It has been further mentioned that if booking has been financed by financier than informed the financer for delivery of advancement.
6. Letter dtd. 24.10.2009 issued by Nitin Seth for interest payment on booking amount of Nano Car @ 8.5% for the period from 23^rd June 2009 to 30^th September 2009.  It has been further mentioned in case of any queries to contact Tata Motors call centre. Chaque amount of Rs. 2489.58/- has been enclosed.
7. Payment advice dt. 04.11.2009 given to complainant with the letter.
8. Quotation receipt dt. 08.07.2009 of Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd. i.d. OP No. 2 with detail payment given to SBI, Siliguri Branch.
9. Letter dt. 15.07.2010 issued by Nitin Seth Head of Car Product Group of Tata Motors Ltd. to complainant with information that Tata Motors have increased the price of Tata Nano amounting to Rs. 1,63,009/- being ex-showroom price valid for deliveries before 15.08.2010 with advise to process for balance payment with further information that interest payment from April is due and will be dispatched shortly.
10.  Money Receipt No. 855dt. 14.08.2010 issued by Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd. for amount of Rs. 43,009/- in favour of complainant for Nano balance payment vide cheque no. 409905.
11.  Letter dt. 13.08.2010 issued by Niraj Srivastava, Head Car Product Group of Tata Motors Ltd. informing complainant that Nano is ready for delivery and to complete the necessary formality before 31.08.2010 with further information that interest cost till 31.08.2010 will be issued and a cheque of Rs. 4248/- dt. 15.09.2010 has been attached.
12. Letter with information for cheque amount for Rs. 4248/- which is last interest on booking amount.
13. Letter dt. 14.10.2010 issued from Tata Motors Ltd. to complainant for further interest amount from 1.04.2010 to 31.08.2010.
14. Complainant’s letter dt. 30.05.2011 to M/s. Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd. for retention of Tata Nano booked under UIN No. 113166293 and request has been made as to when Car will be delivered though complainant is paying interest on loan amount.
15.  Statements of account of complainant for which details has been furnished by State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch.

Both sides have filed their evidences and written notes on argument with some citations.

So far as main argument on behalf of OP No. 1, 3 & 4 that

Rs.43,009/- was paid to OP No. 2 by complainant through cheque No. 409905 dt. 14.08.2010 but said amount was not received by OP No. 1 i.e. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. and further OP No. 1 is also not aware as to whether said amount was refunded by OP No. 2 to complainant or not.

It has been further argued that SBI RAMSEC, Siliguri has been made party subsequently in this complaint as OP No. 5 but it is not clear whether the loan has been paid or same has been closed on repayment. OP No. 5 has stated that it is not possible to give any clarification regarding claim of OP No. 1, 3 & 4 as the booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was refunded through SBI, CAG, Branch on 20.12.2010 along with other  transfers through a common RTGS of 590 cases. Further OP No. 5 has not obtained details from SBI CAG Branch as to whether said amount was received by them or not and for this reason said amount continues to be enjoyed by SBI.

It has been further argued that since after booking of Nano Car obtaining loan from SBI several persons cancelled their booking as they did not wanted to retain the money for long. In this case complainant was refunded the booking amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- through SBI CAG Branch on 20.12.2010. It is responsibility of SBI CAG Branch to transfer the money to respective Branch and respective customers and it is believed that those refunded amount was adjusted in loan account of complainant as such SBI Siliguri Branch be directed to consult with SBI CAG Branch and return the said sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and be adjusted in the loan account of complainant.

It is further argued that claim of complainant from OP No.1, 3 & 4 to make payment of Rs.1,63,009/- together with interest of 18% on and from 31.08.2010 is not tenable  because a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- received from the complainant on 09.10.2010 was returned to SBI CAG Branch on 20.12.2010. Further complainant has already received interest @8.5% i.e. Rs.4248/- on Nano booking amount from 1.04.2010 to 31.08.2010 and later on Rs.2489/- on 4.11.2009, so no amount is payable by OP No. 1, 3 & 4 to complainant and the amount should be paid by SBI. The complainant is also not entitled for other reliefs from OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4 because booking money has been refunded.

Now let us see the argument of State Bank of India Siliguri Branch. The  OP No. 5 in written version dt.19.03.2012has admitted that a loan of Rs.1,51,000/- up to upper limit was sanctioned and complainant availed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and is depositing monthly installment till 04.02.2012 by transferring the said from his account.

Again OP No. 5 has stated that giving knowledge to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been credited to account of complainant and is lying there as the OP No. 1 has refunded the said advance money. Thereafter complainant on 28.07.2012 in writing has requested this OP no. 5  to credit the excess amount after liquidating his car loan account number 30900272297 to his cash credit account number 11168837548 in the name of Ms. Sarkar Engineering Company and this had been denied by the complaint that he has ever gave any letter in writing on 28.07.2012.

It is further submission of OP No. 5 that he is not aware as to

whether OPs No. 1,3 & 4 had intimated the complainant for refund of money on 20.12.2010 and further the complainant has never claimed any interest for the period from 20.12.2010 to 27.07.2012 on said amount, so complainant is not entitled for any interest at this stage. Further the complainant has received said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on clear request letter given to this OP..

The OP No. 5 has denied that he had charged a sum of Rs.53,129/- only as interest from the complainant since the date of disbursement of loan till 28.07.2012. The Op number 5 has shifted the burden upon complainant and denied that complainant is entitled for interest @ 18 % per annum on amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from 20.12.2010 to 28.07.2012 and further OP no. 5 has stated that OP bank has informed the complainant when OP No. 1 deposited amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the SBI CAG on 20.12.2010 through common RTGS payment being UTR No.HDFCH10355348257 against 590 cases and thereafter complainant on 28.7.2012 in writing requested the OP bank to credit amount in his aforesaid car loan account but did not claim any interest from Op, so there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP. It appears that to corroborate this fact OP has never produce any letter of complainant written on 28.07.2012.

After consideration of entire facts and circumstances of oral and documentary evidences and arguments made, it appears clearly that the complainant has booked Nano car through OP no. 2 upon considering allurations/proposals/introductory offers from the side of OPs no. 1,3 and 4 and to purchase the Nano car complainant received and deposited the form to OP no. 2 who received the same on putting seal & signature for booking of Tata Nano car. Thereafter one Unique Identification number for booking of Nano car was provided to complainant with information that an interest @ 8.5% will be provided on booking amount and informed that car will be provided within January to March 2011 through Bajla Motors, Siliguri. This shows Bajla Motors is dealer of Tata Motors Limited for Tata Nono car at Siliguri and acts on their behalf.

On finance problem after discussions complainant receivedquotation from OP no. 2 and also applied for car loan to OP no. 5 and OP no. 5 sanctioned car loan upper limit for amount of Rs.1,51,000/- The complainant paid amount of Rs.1,20,000/- by demand draft to Ops no.1,3, & 4 through Op no.2. The complainant received interest on booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the end of Ops no. 1,3&4 @ 8.5% on two occasions. Later from the end of Ops. no. 1,3&4 it was informed that price of Nano car has  increased from Rs.1,56,797/- to Rs.1,63,009/- and complainant was asked to pay balance amount and make contact with O.P no.2. Later complainant deposited Rs.43,009/- to O.P no.2 through cheque dt. 14.8.2010.

Here this amount of Rs.43,009/- has not been received by Ops.no. 1,3 & 4 as alleged and OP no. 2 is also silent on this score, so it is clear that this amount of Rs.43,009/- has been withheld by OP. no.2 illegally and complainant is entitled for it. This conduct of OP no. 2 shows that he adopted unfair trade practice.

From these evidences it is held that complainant has accepted the proposal form of Ops. no. 1,3 & 4 for purchase of car and has booked the same on payment of booking money which has been accepted by Ops. no. 1,3 & 4 through Op no.2. Thus complainant has met the requirements for being a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act and is a consumer.

It is also clear from the evidences that booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by complainant to Ops. no. 1, 3 & 4 has been deposited in SBI CAG branch on 20.12.2010 and has been returned to complainant through Op no.5. So far as question of cancellation of booking of Nano car by complainant is considered, it appears complainant specifically stated that he has not cancelled the booking of Nano car and Ops. no. 1, 3 & 4 have failed to produce any sort of documents to prove their allegations that booking was cancelled on request of cancellation. This shows that Ops. no. 1 , 3 & 4 have cancelled the booking of Tata Nano car by complainant at their own side and did not dare to inform it to complainant. Even they have not informed to Op no.2 and also Op no.5. This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part Ops. no. 1,3 & 4. Further Ops. no. 1, 3 & 4 have received the booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from complainant on 09.10.2009 and deposited in SBI CAG branch on 20.12.2010 and during these periods they have paid interest amount of Rs.6,737/- only to complainant till 31.08.2010 and thereafter no interest amount has been paid. So complainant shall be entitled for further interest from 01.09.2010 to 20.12.2010 from Ops. no.1,3& 4.

Now come to evidences available in respect of allegations and counter allegations of Op. no.5.

It is admitted fact by complainant and Op no. 5 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,51,000/-   for car loan and an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- had gone in to account of Ops. no. 1, 3 & 4 as per demand draft dated 09.10.2009 of complainant. The complainant has continued to pay car loan amounts in installments to Op no.5 till 04.02.2012 as stated by op no.5.

Further according to Op nos. 1, 3& 4 the complainant was refunded the booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- through SBI CAG Branch on 20.12.2010 along with other transfers through a common TRGS of 509 cases. Thus Ops. no 1, 3 & 4 have not given any information directly for return of above money to complainant nor Ops. no.5. They have not deposited the above amount directly to Op no.5.

Though the Op no. 5 has alleged that the complainant on 28.07.2012 has requested in writing to Op no.5 to credit the excess amount after liquidating his car loan account no. 30900272297 to his cash credit account no. 11168837548 in the name of M/s. Sarkar Engineering Company but has failed to produce any such document. This shows that complainant has rightly pointed that this has been done by Op no.5 without knowledge of complainant amounting to deficiency in service. This support the claim of complainant that deposit of money with SBI CAG on 20.12.2010 by OPs. no. 1, 3 & 4 was not communicated by SBI CAG branch to OP no.5 nor complainant. It was

internal matter of SBI CAG branch and Op no.5 and for this fault complainant should not suffer since 20.12.2010 and is entitled for interest on this amount of Rs.1,20,000/- till 28.07.2012. Mere allegations that complainant did not claim interest at that time will not deprive the complainant from benefit as fault was upon Banking Op.

Now let us consider the claim of complainant that Op no.5 has provided loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant and charged a sum of Rs.53,129/- as interest till 28.07.2012 though he was required to charge interest from the date of disbursement till 20.12.2010  when Ops. no. 1,3 & 4 deposited the amount in SBI CAG, so the Op no.5 is required to return the excessive interest to complainant. Though the Op no.5 has denied that he has not charged amount of Rs.53,129/- as interest but it is clear that he has charged interest on loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/- till he allegedly credited the loan amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in another account of complainant being cash credit account. So it is duty of Op no.5 to return the excess interest as amount was itself lying in his SBI CAG branch and for this reason complainant should not suffer. Non adjustment of interest amount is a kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Thus complainant has been able to prove that there was unfair trade practices and deficiency in services on the part of Ops and complainant is entitled to succeed the claim.

                                                Hence, it is ordered,

That Consumer Case no. 72 of 2011 is allowed on contest against the opposite parties with costs.

The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.43,009/- from the opposite no. 2 along with interest @ 18% per annum since 14.08.2010 till realization.

The complainant is entitled to receive further interest @ 18% per annum on amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from Ops. no. 1, 3 & 4 from 01.09.2010 to 19.12.2010.

The complainant is entitled to receive interest on Rs.1,20,000/- from 20.12.2010 to 28.07.2012 @ 12% per annum from Op no.5.

The complainant is also entitled to get return of excessive interest charged by Op no.5 on above amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for the periods from 20.10.2010 to 28.07.2012.

The complainant is further entitled for amount of Rs.75,500/- for his mental pain, agony and harassment and punitive damages amount of Rs.20,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties.

The each set of opposite parties (i) OP no.2 (ii) OP nos. 1, 3 and 4 (iii) OP no.5 will pay the amounts of Rs.75,500+20,000+10,000/- in equal share of Rs.35,000/- each with interest @ 8% per annum since the date of filing of this case till the date of realization.

All the opposite parties are directed to pay the above directed amounts to the complainant within 45 days of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to realize the amount as per law.

Let a copy of this order be provided to the contesting parties free of costs.