IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> Ex.Cri. 110/09 DATED 14.05.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Decree Holder G.S.Srinivasan, S/o Gundappa Gowda, C/o Channachari, Gopika School Road, Papanna Layout, Yaraganahalli, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri C.N.B., Advcoate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Judgement debtor Manager, M/s Tata Motors Limited, TMF, Bangalore Branch, 3rd Floor, Oxford House, Rustum Bagh Estate, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Sri H.S.K , Advocate)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The petitioner-Decree Holder has filed the petition under section 27 of the C.P.Act. <br /> 2. Relevant facts are as under:-<br /> The Petitioner-Decree Holder has obtained an order in CC 188/09 on the file of this Forum dated 17.08.2009 wherein certain directions were issued to the opposite party/Judgement debtor. Alleging that the opposite party/Judgement debtor has not complied with the said order, the Decree Holder has filed the present petiton. He has claimed a sum of Rs.2,62,493/- and further, it is prayed to detain the Judgement debtor in prison for contempt of Court. In the affidavit accompanying petition, certain facts are narrated in detail. <br /> 3. Considering the facts and the material on record, Forum took cognizance and issued process to the Judgement debtor. The Judgement debtor has appeared before the Forum through advocate. Certain interim orders were passed, for which at this stage we are not concerned. Thereafter, plea of the Judgement debtor was recorded. He pleaded not guilty. Then, the matter was posted for evidence of the Decree Holder. The Decree Holder has been examined as P.W.1. Thereafter, Judgement debtor has been examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. For the Judgement debtor, no defense evidence is adduced. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocates for the Decree Holder and Judgement debtor and perused the records.<br /> 4. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the Decree Holder has proved that the Judgement debtor has omitted or failed to comply with the order of this Forum in CC No.188/09 dated 17.08.2009 and that has committed an offence punishable under section 27 of the C.P.Act?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The relevant portion of the order is that,<br /> “The second opposite party is hereby directed to pay the excess amount out of the sale proceeds of the vehicle in question to the complainant deducting the outstanding loan amount, within 60 days from the date of this order along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the sale of the vehicle.<br /> The second opposite party is further directed to furnish detail particulars of the loan amount due and for what amount vehicle has been sold as well as to whom and when. On that basis it shall work out the amount and pay the same to the complainant otherwise it should be worked out during appropriate proceedings.<br /> The second opposite party shall pay the sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the present proceedings.”<br /> <br /> 7. The compliance of the above order by the Judgement debtor arises, if there is excess amount remained deducting the outstanding loan in the sale proceeds of the vehicle. The Judgement debtor was directed to furnish for what amount the vehicle was sold and to whom. In this regard, memo was filed stating that, the seized vehicle was sold to one Asis Ekbal for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 30.10.2008. Statement of account also, was filed. On the basis of the same, for the Judgement debtor it is submitted that, there is no excess amount payable by the Judgement debtor to the Decree Holder. Since, these facts and figure are not denied and disputed by the Decree Holder, as submitted for the Judgement debtor, there will be no question of payment of excess amount and consequently, non-compliance of the order. As regards the cost of the proceedings, that has been paid by the Judgement debtor to the advocate for the Decree Holder during the present proceedings.<br /> <br /> 8. Considering the material on record and the nature of the order referred to above, we are of the opinion that, the Decree Holder has failed to prove that, the Judgement debtor has omitted or failed to comply the order. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 9. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The petition is dismissed.<br /> 2. The Judgement debtor is acquitted and set at liberty.<br /> 3. However, it is made clear that, if the Decree Holder has got any right or claim against the Judgement debtor, he can seek the same in accordance with law. <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 14th May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />