National Insurance Co. and Another vs Smt. Raj Dulari and Another

A.B. Qadir Parray, J.—This order will dispose of both the revision petitions referred to hereinabove.

The short point which is being projected before me is that the State Commissioner under the Consumers Protection Act has given award against

the petitioner. That award was being challenged in appeal before a competent bench (Division Bench of this Court). That appeal is said to have

been dismissed in limine. Now the Commission has started execution/recovery of the award amount and the recovery is being done in pursuance of

the statute envisaged in this behalf, treating the award as a decree to be recovered as such in execution proceedings. The petitioner has challenged

the process of execution initiated by the Commission by way of this revision.

Revision is neither maintainable on the count that there are no provisions which envisaged that the order passed by the Commission are revisable

before this Court nor is this revision maintainable on the count that the award was agitated in a regular appeal which stands already dismissed by a

competent Court (Division Bench) of this Court. The usufructs of the award/decree passed in favour of the consumer are to be given benefit of and

by way of moving this revision, petitioner want that the consumer should not claim usufructs of the decree or the award which has been passed in

his favour.

The contention of Mr. Kawoosa that he wants to deposit the whole amount before this Court just to stop the execution proceedings is of no

avail because when this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision, I don't understand as to in what capacity I shall entertain the request

made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In case petitioners are sincere and very much clear in their offers, they can do same before the

Consumer Forum and deposit the amount, so that no recovery proceedings are initiated by the Forum.

Mr. Kawoosa further submits that the petitioners intend to file SLP before the Apex Court and want that this Court should exercise powers and

vested in it under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 26 of Civil P.C. by staying the execution on the pretext that the petitioner be given time to file

Special Leave Petition. This argument of Mr. Kawoosa is also without any force because this Court has but-rightly stated that when this Court has

no jurisdiction to entertain the revision not to speak of enforcement of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, which are otherwise available to this

Court as appellate Court and the appellate Court has already exhausted its jurisdiction over the matter.

For the foregoing reasons, these revision petitions being misconceived are accordingly dismissed.

Copy of this order be placed on each file. Petition dismissed.