PARAMJIT SINGH vs KISAN ICE FACTORY AND COLD STORAGE

-THIS order will dispose of First Appeal No. 175 of 2006 as also First Appeal Nos. 176 to 229 of 2006. 55 complaints filed by the complainants were disposed of by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur by the same impugned order dated December 21, 2005 and consequently 55 appeals have been filed.

FOR disposing of these appeals detailed facts need not be given. Suffice it to say that the complainants-appellants had obtained an order in their favour from the District Forum on November 27, 1996 against the opposite parties that since the potato seeds stored by them in the cold storage of the opposite parties had got damaged, they were entitled to the cost of potatoes @ Rs. 400 per bag of potatoes. Rs. 500 were also allowed as costs in each of the complaint. It may be highlighted here that no interest was made payable on the amount awarded by the District Forum. The rest of the facts are that in the appeals filed by the opposite parties before this Commission, were admitted and the execution of the District Forum''s order to the extent of 50% of the amount awarded was stayed by this Commission on April 15, 1997. In passing it may be observed that opposite parties also tried to challenge the order of the District Forum before a Civil Court so also the execution proceedings. Their applications for staying the proceedings before the District Court were declined on 1. 12. 1997. All the 56 appeals against the orders of the District Forum dated 27. 11. 1996 were heard by this Commission and vide order dated May 26, 1998 the same were dismissed and the order of the District Forum dated November 27, 1996 was upheld. The judgment-debtors filed revision petitions before the National Commission and in the revision petitions, the stay which was granted vide order dated 4. 9. 1998 was to the effect that the cold storage belonging to the judgment-debtors would not be sold in execution. In other words, the execution proceedings were not stayed. The District Forum in proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act passed order of six months'' imprisonment against Shri Sohan Singh Gill, partner of the opposite parties subject to his making payment in some of the execution applications. However, the payment was not made. Rather an application was filed for stay ol the proceedings for the recovery of the amount. In some of the execution applications, it is stated that the District Forum observed that there was no risk with regard to the recovery of the amount as in case the revision petitions were dismissed by the National Commission, the cold storage could be sold. Those execution applications were adjourned sine die and were ordered to be revived as and when the matter was disposed of by the National Commission. On April 15, 2002 15 revision petitions were dismissed by the National Commission upholding the orders of the District Forum and of this Commission. The remaining revision petitions were dismissed by the National Commission on August 7, 2003. After the dismissal of the revision petitions, the opposite parties moved an application dated 14. 10. 2003 in the execution applications asking the complainants to place on record the exact amount of claim. Though it was stated that the order had been modified by the National Commission, but as per the Counsel for the appellant it was not so. That application asking the complainants to place on record the exact amount of claim was dismissed by the District Forum on November 21, 2003. On December 12, 2003, the judgment-debtors filed an application before the District Forum for tendering the cheques of the amounts in question to the complainants/deeree-holders. The cheques were tendered and received under protest by the Counsel for the complainants/decree-holders on December 12, 2003 reserving the rights of the complainants/decree-holders to claim interest/damages as per the law. The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum claiming interest on the decretal amount which had to be paid immediately after the order dated November 27, 1996 had been passed by the District Forum. It was alleged that the opposite parties mala fide delayed the payment of the amounts due. The question for our consideration is that if in a particular decree in the present case the order of the District Forum dated 27. 11. 1996, no compensation/interest or anything of the like is made payable on the amount awarded and the judgment-debtor is taking some legal recourse and after failing in the legal recourse, the payment is made as per the decree, would a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act lie that the judgment-debtors are guilty of not rendering service or discharging their duties and, therefore, the compensation, interest, etc. is payable? To our mind, such a complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Under the Consumer Protection Act there has to be a consumer and a service provider who is actually to render service. According to us, none of these two things exists in the present case. A judgment-debtor is not a service provider. For not complying with the decree as such remedies are available under the Consumer Protection Act itself in Sections 25 and 27. Section 25 deals with execution of the order of the District Forum/state Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be and Section 27 deals with punishment for not complying with the order. If the order is complied later than the stipulated time without any rhyme or reason even though the order might have been complied with late, yet the judgment-debtor can be punished under Section 27 of the Act. Of course, it will be up to the Fora to find out whether the non-compliance has been without any justifiable cause and, if not, what punishment is to follow.

Learned Counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of the National Commission in K. M. Singh v. Sr. Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, IV (2005) CPJ 174 (NC)=2005 (3) CPR 38 (NC), to say that in execution proceedings the National Commission had awarded 12% interest per annum on the amount. We have gene through the judgment. No law was being laid down by the National Commission that in the circumstances as were mentioned in that order interest must follow and that too at the rate of 12% per annum. Apart from that, the present proceedings are not under Section 25 or Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. These were original complaints filed before the District Forum. According to us, the complainant would have been well advised to insist before this Commission of the National Commission when the appeals/revision petitions of the opposite parties were dismissed that the order of the District Forum be modified that some compensation, interest, etc. be made payable on the amount awarded by the District Forum. The National Commission, as observed above upheld the order of the District Forum as it was, i. e. , no compensation, interest, etc. was awarded by the District Forum which was upheld by this Commission as well as the National Commission.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in these appeals, which are dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order will not come in the way of the appellants to avail any other remedy if available under law. Appeal dismissed.