Soma Devi vs GEETA RAM

FEELING aggrieved against order dated 6.6.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Execution Application No. 234 of 2000, this appeal has been filed by the execution applicants Smt. Soma Devi and others.

NOTICE of appeal was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 put in appearance through Mr. Jai Gopal Verma, Advocate while Mrs. Uma Gupta, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 2. The record of the execution case was also summoned. Mr. D.D. Chaddha one of the appellant/complainant appeared in person and he submitted before us that he has already placed sufficient material on record of the case, which may be perused while deciding this appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the execution application itself is not maintainable inasmuch as the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh dismissed the complaint vide order dated 19.10.1995. An appeal was filed before this State Commission, which was dismissed, vide order dated 9.7.1996. A revision petition was filed by the complainants before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission] which was also dismissed.

The complainants filed a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. According to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the O.Ps, there is no decree passed in the complaint case filed by the appellants and consequently, the appellants cannot legally move an execution application and ask for the execution or implementation of any order.

AFTER going through the impugned order and the record of the case, we find that the matter is not as simple as has been put before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The order of the District Forum-I dated 19.10.1995 which has been extracted by the District Forum-II in the impugned order itself goes to show that on one hand, the District Forum found no case made out for ordering the Administrator of the O.P.-Society to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants by giving preference over the rights of the other depositors and held that the complaint was without merit and dismissed the same. It would have been a different matter, had the matter would have been left there but we find that the District Forum proceeded to make certain observations before parting with the complaint. These observations have been made after dismissing the complaint as lacking in merit, which are significant and relevant. We find from perusal of the order that the District Forum noticed that the complainants were in the company of other depositors are standing in a queue for getting the payments of their deposits which are in the shape of fixed deposit receipts. The District Forum further observed that the complainants would not with other depositors to jump and queue likewise; the District Forum would not permit the complainants to do the same at the cost of other depositors. The District Forum also found that some irregular payments which had been earlier made to some of the depositors, which act/conduct was condemned but the District Forum was on the view that the same could not be a precedent for ordering out of turn payments to the complainants. Thereafter, there is a reference to the new Administrator of O.P.-society having prepared the seniority list on rational basis and due observance/implementation of the list by the administrator in the matter of repayment of deposits has been ensured by the appointment of Advisory Committee. The District Forum felt that the rights of complainants like other depositors would be fully guarded and protected. The District Forum felt that a request be made to the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Chandigarh to appoint some Senior Officer for keeping watch on the work and conduct of the administrator who may be asked to submit monthly reports with regard to the amount received and its disbursement to the eligible depositors.

NOW the question, which arises, is whether the observations, which have followed after dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, are merely observations which are not in the shape of any directions or order and whether the same are to be executed or implemented. The District Forum after finding the complaint lacking in merit and dismissing the same, felt persuaded by the exigency of the case in making the observations before parting with the complaint case. It is evident that it was the ardent desire, which is based on the appreciation of the case before the District Forum that the District Forum proceeded to pass the subsequent order. This order was taken in appeal which came up for hearing before this Commission and was decided vide order dated 9.7.1996. This State Commission found that there were three FDRs of the complainants. One FDR dated 20.9.1991 of Rs. 15,000/- had been repaid to the complainant in full. So far as the remaining two FDRs are concerned, the District Forum vide order dated 19.10.1995 directed that these are to be repaid strictly according to its turn. The decision in this regard was based upon the scheme envisaged by the Registrar, Co-operative Society, U.T., Chandigarh dated 10.2.1995. It was found that the appellant could not show that the scheme was violated or not by the respondents and in this view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed. This State Commission also took into consideration the fact that there were two FDRs remaining for payment and which was to be made according to its turn. The Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 21.4.1998 dismissed the revision petition as being without merit but directed the respondent No. 1 to furnish the seniority list according to which the payments shall be made to the depositors within four weeks'' time. This order of the Hon'ble National Commission was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inasmuch as the S.L.P. was dismissed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order of the Hon'ble National Commission was not shown to be defective and the S.L.P. was resulantly dismissed meaning thereby that the order of the Hon'ble National Commission remained intact. The crux of the matter is that though the complaint was initially dismissed as lacking in merit yet certain directions were given by the District Forum which were upheld in appeal by the State Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed th revision petition and added further that the respondent No. 1 will furnish seniority list according to which payments shall be made to the depositors within four weeks'' time.

UNDISPUTEDLY, the complainants who are the appellants before us are the depositors and included in the term depositors. The order of the Hon'ble National Commission was passed on 21.4.1998 and on that date, the Hon'ble National Commission directed the respondent No. 1 to furnish seniority list according to which payments were to be made to the depositors within four weeks'' time. The rest of the matter is quite simple. The District Forum is the authority who has to ensure the implementation of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in revision petition and it is in connection with the implementation of this order of the Hon'ble National Commission that the appellants are seeking the implementation of this order. We thus find no merit in the contention of the respondents that there is no executable decree passed in this case. We also find from perusal of the impugned order that the District Forum directed the respondent No. 1 for submission of the statements and the Registrar, Cooperative Society was asked to ensure that the statements are actually submitted by the date of hearing fixed by the District Forum.

THE District Forum has to consider and adjudicate the dispute as to whether the seniority list has been prepared by the respondent No. 1 and furnish the seniority list. In the next place, the District Forum has to adjudicate the fact whether the payments have been made to the depositors within four weeks'' time as directed by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 21.4.1998. THE sole purpose of execution is to ensure the implementation of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission as confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to ensure that the payments have been made in respect of the FDRs of the appellants, which remained to be paid as per the seniority list. We have not been shown any such seniority list by the respondent No. 1. It shall be for the District Forum to get the said order implemented at the earliest so that due payment is made to the depositors including the payments as per the seniority list. THE execution and implementation of the order be ensured within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.