OM PRAKASH SAINI & ORS. vs D.C.M. LTD.

This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 12.11.2013 passed by State Commission in execution application no. 2013/2009 by which application was dismissed.

Complainant / appellant filed complaint before State Commission and Ld. State Commission vide order dated 13.10.2006 allowed complaint and directed opposite party / respondent to pay maturity amount as per terms of the contracts at the agreed rate of interest upto the maturity date and @ 12% after the maturity date till the date of order. Ld. State Commission further allowed Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. This order was challenged by opposite party before Delhi High Court and Hon''ble High Court set aside order of State Commission. Hon''ble Apex Court vide order dated 06.07.2010 in appeal no. 4902-04/2010 set aside order of High Court and remanded back matter to the High Court. Hon''ble High Court vide order dated 01.03.2012 allowed opposite party to move necessary application before this commission for restoration of appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn. This Commission vide order dated 09.10.2012 dismissed application for restoring the appeal. In such circumstances, order of State Commission attend finality.

Complainant filed execution application before State Commission and Ld. State Commission vide impugned order observed that opposite party has already paid decretal amount to the complainant but complainant''s grievance was that he was not paid amount within one month for which he claimed interest which was declined by Ld. State Commission against which this appeal has been filed.

Heard appellant in person and AR of respondent and perused record.

Appellant submitted that as amount was not paid within a period of one month, he was entitled to interest on aforesaid amount for this intervening period and Ld. State Commission has committed error in dismissing execution petition hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and he may be awarded interest. On the other hand, AR of respondent submitted that executing court cannot travel beyond decree and order passed by Ld. State Commission is in accordance with law hence, appeal be dismissed.

It is not disputed that complainant has received decretal amount. The only grievance of complainant is that he was not paid amount within period of one month so, he was entitled to get interest for the delayed period. Ld. State Commission rightly declined to grant interest for the delayed period as original order of State Commission in the complaint did not provide for interest in case payment is not made within period of one month. Hon''ble Apex Court in AIR 1997 S.C. 410 Rameshwar Das Gupta vs. State of U.P. held that executing court cannot travel beyond decree under execution.

As State Commission did not allow any interest in case of delay in payment of decretal amount after 30 days, no interest was payable, in the light of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Rameshwar Das (Supra) and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.