Award of Consumer forum superseded.

1. Material facts which arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition may be summarised as follows:-

Petitioners herein are Divisional Manager and Branch Manager of a Nationalised Bank, namely, Canara Bank. 1st respondent availed a financial facility from the said Bank and the same was guaranteed by second respondent. It is seen that there was correspondence between the petitioners and respondents regarding rate of interest. It is the case of the respondents that the Bank agreed for reduction in rate of interest and that was assured by the then Branch Manager. The said allegation was disputed by the petitioners. At any rate, the Bank itself offered some concession, i.e., a reduction of Rs. 7,000 in interest provided the entire balance was paid in a lump within a particular time. When the matter was not settled petitioner field O.S.No.32 of 1992, on the file of Additional District Judge's Court. Pondicherry, for recovery of money by sale of the mortgaged properties.

2. While the matter was pending before the Civil Court, respondents herein filed an application before the Consumer Redressal Forum, alleging that there is deficiency in service, and the rate of interest claimed is excessive. The Consumer Redressal Forum directed that the petitioners herein will be entitled to realise only the balance amount after giving credit to Rs.7,000 which the Bank promised to give as a reduction. In that proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forum, petitioners herein challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum and also contended that there is no deficiency in service. But there was no finding regarding the same. Inspite of it, an Award was passed.

3. Respondents herein filed a written statement in the suit contending that they have already obtained an Award in the Consumer Redressal Forum, which entitles them to get a reduction of Rs. 7,000. When such a written statement was filed, petitioners herein contended that the Award of the Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and there was no deficiency in service. When a civil suit was pending, the Consumer Redressal Forum should not have entertained the matter. In the Civil Court, an issue was raised: "Whether the finding of the Consumer Redressal Forum, Pondicherry, in Case No. 138 of 1992 dated 21.12.1992 is binding on the Civil Court?"

4. A very detailed finding was entered by the Civil Court holding that the Award of the Consumer Redressal Forum is without jurisdiction, and the plaintiff is also not bound by it. It further found that there is no finding by the Consumer Redressal Forum that there is any deficiency in service which alone gives jurisdiction to that Authority. It further found that the so-called claim of adjustment in interest was in the nature of a concession on certain conditions. Since the respondents herein did not comply with the conditions, it is their own fault and the Bank is entitled to realise other entire interest due on their account. It was further found that the Bank is entitled to contract rate of interest and granting a concession is purely a discretion of the Bank, and the Consumer Redressal Forum should not have interfered in such case. The finding was that the Award of the Tribunal was binding neither on the Civil Court nor the plaintiff. That judgment was pronounced on 30-9-1996, and that judgment has become final.

5. When proceeding were initiated for recovery of the amount pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court, respondents herein filed an application before the Consumer Redressal Forum, to execute the Award passed by it, as C.No. 138 of 1992 in E.P. No.28 of 1996. On receipt of the Execution petition, notice was issued to the petitioner herein by the Consumer Redressal Forum, directing it to satisfy the order and report the same, failing which action will be taken for disobedience of the Order. The Execution Petition was posted to 25.11.1996 for report. Petitioner herein filed Objections to the Execution Petition and contended that