Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 07-12-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in EA No.  160/2013.

Appellant’s case, in a nutshell, is that in response to another Appeal filed by him, this Commission allowed the same in part whereof Appellant was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 and an equal sum to State Consumer Welfare Fund.  It is stated by the Appellant that he has already complied with the said order.  Despite this, the Ld. District Forum directed this Appellant to pay further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  Hence, this Appeal.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties are heard in the matter.  We have also gone through the material on record.

It appears, the Ld. District Forum, vide its order dated 29-04-2013 in C.C.No. 34/2013 directed the Appellant to pay (1) litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (2) refund Rs. 2,900/- (3) compensation  Rs. 1,00,000/- (4) penalty Rs. 2,50,000/- and (5) interest @ 10% p.a. for the entire period of default.

Against this order, Appellant moved an Appeal being no. FA/530/2013 whereof this Commission vide Order dated 30-09-2015 modified the above impugned order in part as under:

The Appellant was directed to (1) refund Rs. 2,900/- to the Respondent No. 1 (2) pay penalty amounting to Rs. 40,000/- (3) interest @ 9% p.a. for the period of default.  Significantly, while passing the order, neither the cost amount was altered by this Commission nor the compensation amount was struck off/reduced. 

Against such backdrop, by directing the Appellant to pay (1) compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (2) cost Rs. 2,000/- together with interest @ 9% to the Respondent No. 1, being the executing Court, the Ld. District Forum committed no jurisdictional error.  The impugned order, as we find, was a speaking order whereof Appellant’s liability was spelt out in crystal clear terms.  Insofar as the order of the Ld. District Forum dated 29-04-2013 was not set aside, but merely modified partially, the Appellant cannot seek immunity from paying those amount which were not altered/reduced.

The Appeal appears to be bereft of any merit.  As such, the impugned order does not call for any sort of intervention from this end.

Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That Appeal stands dismissed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.