ORDER

V.P. Patel, President—The appellant (Original Complainant) has filed this appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( for short CP act, 2019), being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Junagadh (for short “Learned District Commission”) in Execution Application No. 1 of 2021.

2. Heard ld. advocate Mr. A.S.Bhavsar for the appellant and Ld. Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh for the Respondent. Perused the record of the case.

3. Order Under Challenge: Ld. District Commission has dispose of Execution Application No. 1/2021 as fully satisfied on 16.04.2022. In this case we have referred the parties as per their original status.

Facts of the Case:

4. That the Appellant (Original Complainant) had filed Consumer Complaint No. 17/2015 before the District Commission Porbandar to recover Rs. 5,82,214/- (Five Lac Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred Fourteen Only) with 18% interest and Litigation costs and Compensation, Mental harassment etc. The Consumer Complaint No. 17/2015 was partly allowed by the Ld. District Commission vide order dt. 23.05.2017 and directed the Opponent to pay Rs. 5,82,214/- with 9% interest from the date of filling Complaint and further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards Mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards Litigation costs.

4.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dt. 23.05.2017 the Opponent has preferred Appeal No. 642/2017 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (for short SCDRC). The SCDRC in vide dt. 03.07.2021 modified the order dt. 23.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Commission and ordered to pay 75% of IDV Rs. 5,82,214/- = Rs. 4,36,660/- with 9% interest from the date of filling the Complaint. It was further order that the compensation/costs toward mental pain and litigation cost were set aside.

4.2 The Complainant had filed Execution Application No. 1/2021 before the Ld. District Commission to recover the amount as awarded by SCDRC. The Ld. District Commission vide its order dt. 06.09.2021, it was ordered that the Complaint is entitled Rs. 4,36,616/- with 9% interest from dt. 11.06.2015 - 11.09.2017 i.e. Rs. 88,423/-. It was further ordered that the amount of Rs. 12,320/- of interest on FDR is required to be paid.

4.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dt. 06.09.2021 passed by the Ld. District Commission in Execution Application No. 1/2021 in Consumer case No. 17/2015, the complainant has preferred Revision Petition No. 25/2021 before this SCDRC. The Revision Petition 25/2021 was allowed by this Commission on 29.01.2022. This Commission has quashed and set aside the order dt. 06.09.2021 passed by the Ld. District Commission in Execution Application No. 1/2021 and remanded back the case to the Ld. District Commission and directed to take further all necessary steps to comply the order dt 03.07.2021 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 642/2015.

4.4 The Ld. District Commission after hearing both the parties passed impugned order dt 06.04.2022. Hence Complainant has filed present Appeal in Execution Application.

Argument of the Appellant/Complainant:

5. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has argued that the impugned order dt. 06.04.2020 is bad, erroneous and unreasonable, against the provision of law and contrary to evidence of record. The Ld. District Commission has materialy erred in passing the order which goes against the directions passed by this commission in operative order dt. 29.01.2022 in Revision Petition No. 25/2021. It is further argued that the Ld. District Commission while passing the order in excess of jurisdiction, non-application on mind and therefore it is required to quashed and set aside. That the Ld. District Commission has not considered the amount of Rs. 1,49,633/- as interest entitled by the Complainant. That the Impugned order is non-speaking order qua the calculation of the interest. It has committed error of law. He has requested to allow w