Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India vs KISHORI LAL SHAM LAL, RICE MILLS

VIDE this order, two appeal Nos. 307 and 308 of 1996 are being disposed of as the questions involved therein are common and between the same parties.

M/s. Kishori Lal Sham Lal Rice Mills, filed two complaints against the Food Corporation of India. Both the complaints were allowed by the District Forum with the direction to the Food Corporation of India to make payment of different amounts to the complainants. Appeal No. 307 of 1996 refers to the case where Food Corporation of India was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 51350/- with 12% interest thereon. Likewise appeal No. 308 of 1996 refers to the complaint wherein direction was given to the Food Corporation of India to pay a sum of Rs. 44150/- with 12% interest thereon. Against orders of the District Forum referred to above, appeals were filed before the State Commission by Food Corporation of India, which were allowed on May 12,1993. The orders passed by the District Forum were set aside. It was observed that the complainants would be at liberty to file a money suit for realisation of the claim in an appropriate Civil Court. In the meantime, Food Corporation of India had paid the amounts as ordered to the complainants. Food Corporation of India filed applications before the District Forum for refund of the amount paid under orders of the District Forum as referred to above, against the complainant M/s. Kishori Lal Sham Lal Rice Mills through its partner. These applications were contested on behalf of the complainants asserting that against orders of the State Commission, appeals had been filed before the National Commission and further the State Commission had not given any direction for return of the amount. The District Forum dismissed the applications filed by Food Corporation of India that two appeals as referred to above were filed which are for disposal. After hearing Counsels for the parties, we are of the view that orders passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained in law and the appeals deserve to be allowed. Even otherwise, State Commission could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act to pass appropriate just orders in the circumstances of the case. No order of the National Commission with respect to staying operation of the order of the State Commission during the pendency of the appeals before the National Commission has been made as no copy thereof has been produced on the record. Thus, by merely filing an appeal against order of the State Commission, operation of the order of the State Commission cannot be deemed to have been stayed.

The stand taken up by the complainants before the District Forum in the present case that orders passed in the appeals cannot be executed without there being specific direction, is devoid of merit. When the complainants have received benefit in the form of money as compensation under orders of the District Forum, on setting aside the same in appeal, the complainant are bound to refund the same. The principle of restitution in case of success of the appeal can well be attracted to the case under the Consumer Protection Act, even if there is no provision made thereunder. It is in this context that the State Commission while exercising control under Section 17 of the Act can pass appropriate orders keeping in view the circumstances of the case. The right of the complainant after setting aside order of the District Forum granting compensation to retain the money is not supported by any provision in the law. The Courts do not pass in fructuous orders. In the present case, after leaving the complainant to seek his remedy for recovery of money in the Civil Court and dismissing the complaint as such, it cannot be said that the complainant would continue retaining money received under the orders of the District Forum and avoid filing of the suit. The right of the complainant to get the money would be adjudicated in the Civil Court as and when any suit is filed. Even natural justice requires that money got by the complainant under order of the District Forum has to be refunded on setting aside of such an order in appeal.

FOR the reasons recorded, these appeals are allowed with costs of Rs. 1000/- in each case with the direction to the complainant to refund the amount received by the complainants under orders of the District FORum with 12% p.a. interest thereon with effect from the date of decision of the appeal by the State Commission i.e. May 12,1993 till payment and orders of the District FORum are modified accordingly. Appeal allowed with costs.