State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Mr. Sergio Antonio Costa Caldeira, vs Shri Jose Joao Domingos Godinho, on 20 February, 2009
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISION, PANAJI GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia. . . Presiding Member. Smt. Caroline Collasso . . . Member. Revision Application No.3 of 2008 1. Mr. Sergio Antonio Costa Caldeira, major in age, Married, residing c/o Saluzinho Fernandes, Behind General Post Office, Panaji-Goa. Appellant (Original Complainant) v/s Shri Jose Joao Domingos Godinho, M/s. Perfect Builders & Developers, C/o Flat No.9, 3rd Floor, Mutual Housing Co-op. Society, Gina Street, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji, Goa. Respondent (Original Opposite Party) For the Petitioner Shri A P Furtado, Advocate and Advocate S.Naik present at the time of order. For the Respondent Shri G N Mishra, Advocate. Dated: 20-02-2009 ORDER
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17-04-2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa in Execution Application no. 14/2008 whereby his execution was disposed as closed with liberty to re-open at any time if he is able to identify a particular asset of the Judgment Debtor.
2. It is the Petitioners contention that he had identified a specific asset of the Respondent/Judgment Debtor i.e. All the right the judgment debtor has to the inheritance of his late parents, which inheritance includes the tenancy rights to the premises bearing No.E-361, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Near the Panjim Church, Panaji, Goa, and these premises are bounded on the East by the road on the West by the remaining property of Maria do Ceu Barreto, on the South by the remaining property of Maria do Ceu Barreto and on the North by the property of the Administrator of the Communidade, situated in chalta No.174 of P.T. Sheet No.43 of the City Survey of Panaji, Goa.
3. Despite having pointed out to the undivided rights which themselves are specific property, the District Forum had held that no specific assets were brought on record.
4. On the other hand, respondent disputes the contention that the asset in question is a specific property and that it was incapable of being attached under the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Heard Shri A P Furtado and Shri G N Mishra on behalf of the parties and perused records and proceedings of the lower Forum. The petitioner is seeking recovery of the decretal amount i.e. the interest on the amounts paid to the respondent. He furnished details of an asset purportedly co-owned by the respondent supra. Apparently, it escaped the attention of the District Forum and did not find any mention in the impugned order. It would be proper to remand the matter to the District Forum to consider the petitioners plea of attachment and sale of the asset in question.
6. Shri A P Furtado took us through the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and contended that the petitioner upon acquiring the respondents rights to the estate can apply for inventory proceedings or execute deed of partition. Per contra, Shri Mishra submitted that tenancy rights cannot be auctioned since they have not yet been allotted to the respondent. Case law on the subject was brought to our notice. However, since we are remanding the matter, these issues are left open for the parties to canvass before the executing forum.
7. This revision petition is disposed off in accordance with our observations above. Since the execution is long pending, the District Forum shall dispose expeditiously in any case not later than sixty days from receipt of this order. Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 10-03-2009 at 10:00 am. No costs.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member