State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Arup Chatterjee vs Sri Jayanta Ray on 16 December, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/32/2017 ( Date of Filing : 09 Jan 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 07/12/2016 in Case No. EA/190/2013 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Sri Arup Chatterjee S/o Mrinal Chatterjee, IA-236, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata -700 097. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Jayanta Ray S/o Badal Chandra Ray, B-401, Fortune City, 155, Jessore Road, Ganganagar, Kolkata -700 132. 2. Area Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd. 3rd Floor, Andhra Insurance Building, 12, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700 069. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr.Joydeep Goswami., Advocate Dated : 16 Dec 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved with the impugned Order dated 07-12-2016 of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas passed in EA/190/2013, this Appeal is moved.
The case of the Appellant, in short, is that the final order dated 22-05-2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 460/2012 is not executable in law. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order which arose out of the above-mentioned final order dated 22-05-2013.
Parties were heard at length and documents on record gone through.
As it appears, the Respondent No. 1 initiated one complaint case against the Appellant bearing no. CC/460/2012. After the case was decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant preferred one Appeal bearing No. FA/1182/2013. However, the same was dismissed on limitation ground.
In such circumstances, the only remedial course left before the Appellant was to prefer an Appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission within the prescribed time limit. However, no statutory Appeal being preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Commission against the dismissal order of this Commission, the order dated 22-05-2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum attained finality.
Referring to a decision of this Commission in A/872/2016 and also the decisions of some other Courts of law, it is though contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that in exceptional circumstances, an Executing Forum can consider the merit of the case, we do not agree to such proposition for the simple reason that Consumer Forum is merely a Tribunal and not a Court. It though enjoys some of the powers of a Court as specifically spelt out in the statute, simple fact of the matter remains that the statute does not empower Consumer Forum to exercise power u/s 47, C.P.C.
Hon'ble Andhra High Court in V. Chinna Lakshmaiah v. Samurla Ramaiah and Ors. AIR 1991 AP 177, while dealing with the powers of the Executing Court u/s 47 of the C.P.C. held that, it is not for the Executing Court to decide whether the decree passed is legal or illegal or whether it is erroneous or not.
Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, 1977 AIR 1201 making it clear that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness.
Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivshankar Gurgar Vs. Dilip, (2014) 2 SCC 465 following its earlier judgment in the matter of Deepa Bhargava Vs. Mahesh Bhargava, has held that the executing court can neither go beyond the decree nor it has jurisdiction to modify the decree, it has to execute the decree as it is. Relevant portion states as under:-
"......It is a settled principle of law that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. It has no jurisdiction to modify a decree. It must execute the decree as it is".
Against such backdrop, it left us with no scope whatsoever to deliberate upon the merit of the case in this Appeal. The same is impermissible in law.
As the Appellant could not secure any relief from higher Forum to set aside the final order passed in the complaint case, it was obligatory on his part to discharge his obligation, which he did not do. Being the Executing Forum, the Ld. District Forum was duty bound to implement to decree which it did in right earnest.
The impugned order being passed in accordance with law, the same is irreversible. Accordingly, we dismiss this Appeal. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER