This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 03.09.2014 delivered by Ld. DCDRC, Alipurduar in EA/6/2012.

The fact of the case in nut shell is that, the complainant/appellant had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipurduar alleging certain deficiency on the part of the appellant which was contested by the respondent herein and the District Forum had passed its order dated 28.3.2012 directing the respondent to pay Rs. 1,18,102/- to the complainant after deducting any amount which was not deposited with the respondent on proper receipt. From the said order, the execution case being CF Execution 6 of 2012 was started. The Ld. Forum after hearing a petition filed by the judgement debtor dismissed the execution case holding that the complainant/appellant has no claim against the judgement debtor.

 Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. Forum dated 03.09.2014 this appeal follows on the grounds that while sitting in execution jurisdiction going beyond its Jurisdiction dismissed the execution case holding that the Judgement debtor was entitled to get much more than the complainant based on the calculation filed by the complainant which was baseless and devoid of any substance.

The appeal was registered before the Hon’ble Kolkata Beach of this State Commission when delay of appeal was condoned and admitted on merit. The respondent recorded the presence there and there after the appeal case was re-assigned here.

The appellant never came to the bench to conduct the hearing of appeal. Several opportunities were provided to her.

The respondent has contested the appeal through its agent Ld. Advocate Mr. C. Chakraborty and A. Rai. WNA also filed by them.

                                                    Decision with reasons

During the course hearing, the case Ld. Advocate of the respondent mentions that the appellant Poly Naha filed the consumer case vide C.F Case no.06 of 2011 before the Ld. DCDRF at Alipurduar against the respondent The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd and another’s with allegation for nonpayment of commissions which payable to her deceased husband who was a collection agent of the respondent company and also a matured value of Peerless certificate. The respondent company contested the said consumer case by filing written version and evidence inter-alia stating that the claim of the agent commission is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and also on the ground that the said deceased husband of the appellant who was the agent under the respondent company has misappropriated the money of the certificate holders of the respondent during his lifetime.

That after hearing both the parties. The Ld. Consumer District Redressal Forum Circuit Bench of Alipurduar passed an order on 28/03/2012 in the said case being CF case no. 06 of 2011 holding that the case was maintainable and the appellant is entitled to get the compensation on account of the commission of her deceased husband and also the value of the Peerless Certificate and also entitled to get the refund amount of the Peerless certificate against the amount deposited in the name of her deceased husband for the sum of Rs. 1.18,102 (one lakh eighteen thousand one hundred and two only). In addition of the said order, the Ld. DCDRF also directed that the said awarded amount would be subjected to deduction of the amount that was received by her deceased husband from the depositors of the respondent company as an agent but not deposited the collection amount to the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. In the last paragraph of the order portion of the Ld. DCDRF Alipurduar passed an order and directed the Respondent Opposite Party No. 1 after receipt of the copy of order shall send a letter to the complainant and the legal heirs of deceased Sushanta Naha, husband of the appellant Smt. Polly Naha, specifying the amount due and payable by the deceased commission agent to the respondent company. If it is found that the claim amount of the respondent is more than the decretal amount then the respondent Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. is not liable to pay any amount to the appellant.

That after passing the said order, the respondent by its letter dated 10.05.2012 intimated the complainant/appellant and the legal heirs of the deceased husband of the appellant Polly Naha that the total amount collected by the said deceased agent during his lifetime from several depositor of the respondent company but the said amount had not been deposited by the deceased husband of the appellant to the respondent company which total amount come to Rs 5,88,650 (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty eight thousand and six hundred fifty). It is also intimated that out of the certificate holders mention in the above said letter, 4 of them have filed cases against the respondent Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. claiming refund of the amount deposited by them through the deceased agent Sushanta Naha on their account with the respondent company. In the said letter the respondent company had also claimed refund of the amount misappropriated by the deceased agent Sushanta Naha from the appellant.

That it is further stated the appellant Smt. Polly Naha there after filed an execution case without complying the direction of the DCDRF, Alipurduar being execution case no. C.F Ex 06 of 2012 against the respondent for noncompliance of the order dated 28/03/2012. In the said case, several orders were passed by the Ld. DCDRF from time to time and ultimately on 03/09/2014, after hearing the Ld. DCDRF was pleased to drop the Execution case inter-alia, holding that the respondent has complied with the order passed by the Ld. DCDRF in case no. 06 of 2011 and the judgement cited of the Hon'ble National Commission by the respondent, the executing court cannot go beyond the judgement and decree. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in law as well as on facts and it is submitted that the Ld. DCDRF has rightly held that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree which was supported by the judgement of the Hon'ble NCDRC. Therefore, the above appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of the respondent it is revealed that as per Final Order dated 28.03.2012 in C.C. No. 6 of 2011 the JDR/ Respondents were directed to pay total Rs. 1,18,102/- to the DHR/ appellant with statutory interest subject to deduction of the amount which was received by the decreased Sushanta Naha from depositors on proper receipts but which was not deposited to the credit of JDR/ respondents. After obtaining statement of accounts from the JDR/respondent Ld. Forum come to a conclusion in execution case that JDR/ respondents were entitled to get much more amount.

From the deceased Sushanta Naha which was not deposited by the agent or him heirs i.e., DHR and for that reason Ld. Forum was compelled to drop the execution proceeding on its merit.

 In appeal, no substantive materials could be produced by the appellant to prove that finding of the Ld. Forum was misconceived, erroneous and not vested with its Jurisdiction.

 So, the appeal has devoid of Merit.

                                                             Hence it is ordered,

 That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on merit without cost. Let the order be communicated to the Ld. Forum.