AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE aforesaid execution case arises out of the order dated 17.5.1993 passed by this Commission in CD. Case No.108 of 2002.
THE petitioner filed the aforesaid complaint alleging deficiency in service. Her case was that she applied to the opposite parties for sanction of loan by paying Rupees 25,000 as security and Rupees 2,000 as process money. Although she complied all the formalities required for the purpose, the opposite parties neither sanctioned the loan nor refunded the money (Rupees 27,000 ) deposited by her. This Commission by order dated 17.5.1993 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay her Rupees 27,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the deposits. Opposite party No. 2-Subash Chandra Pani filed an application praying to recall that order on the ground that he had no notice of the case. By order dated 19.5.1995, the said application was dismissed by this Commission after hearing him. THE opposite parties without complying the order dated 17.5.1993 filed two separate appeals bearing First Appeal Nos. 369 of 1995 and 370 of 1995 challenging the said order. Both the appeals were dismissed by the National Commission by order dated 19.2.2002 for default. THEreafter they filed two Misc. Petition Nos. 115 of 2002 and 131 of 2002 praying for restoration of the appeals. By order dated 9.7.2002 both the misc. petitions were dismissed by the National Commission. From the above, it is clear that the final order passed by this Commission on 17.5.1993 has become final. The opposite parties are bound to comply it.
It appears that this Commission by order dated 22.6.1995 sent the order of this Commission to the Civil Court for execution. From the order dated 28.2.2003 passed by this Commission, we find that Execution Case No. 103 of 1995 was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack. The fate of that execution case is not known.
ACCEPTING the assertions of the petitioner that the opposite parties have deliberately flouted the order dated 17.5.1993, this Commission in the meanwhile by order dated 28.2.2003 imposed fine of Rupees 5,000 on the opposite parties and directed issue of N.B.W. against them. The warrant was executed against Subash Chandra Pani - opposite party No. 2 who was produced before this Commission on 2.4.2003. He was released on bail subject to the condition that he would deposit Rupees 5,000 (fine) by 17.4.2003. He deposited that amount and the same was released in favour of the petitioner. The opposite party No. 1 - Prabhat Chandra Pani who was said to be the Vice-President of the Financier has not yet appeared. He seems to be evading the process of this Commission. It is contended by the Counsel of the opposite parties that this execution case is not maintainable because of pendency of the execution case in the Civil Court. We do not find any merit in the above contention. This Commission''s order dated 17.5.1993 has not yet been complied with although more than thirteen years have passed. It is unfortunate that taking advantage of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, the defaulting and unsuccessful opposite parties have been evading compliance of the order. For the reasons mentioned above, we hereby direct Prabhat Chandra Pani (opposite party No. 1) and Subash Chandra Pani (opposite party No. 2) to comply the order dated 17.5.1993 by depositing the amount in this Commission latest by 12.10.2006, failing which warrants of arrest will be issued against them. Put up this case on 23.10.2006 to report compliance. Registry may send copy of this order to the opposite parties by tomorrow. Ordered accordingly.