SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3525

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET KOLKATA-700071. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. R.P. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
SC/19/AEA/19/2023



Petitioner Advocates:SWARAJIT DEY ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

APPEAL EXECUTION NO. SC/19/AEA/19/2023

NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED, AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA-700071.

PRESENT ADDRESS - M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AT 3, MIDDLETON

STREET, KOLKATA-700071.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

M/S. R.P. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED

PRESENT ADDRESS - 26, SARAT BOSE ROASD, KOLKATA-700 020.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAJES GUHA RAY , JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. SANTANU SAHA , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED, AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA-

700071., SWARAJIT DEY (Advocate)

DATED: 25/05/2026

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Sanatanu Saha, Member

This Application for Execution Appeal is directed against Order dated 26.07.2023

passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Unit-I,

Kolkata in Execution Application No. 57/2010 arising out of CC/34/2006 whereby the

Learned Commission allowed a prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the

Judgment Debtor/Appellant subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Decree

Holder.

Genesis of the Case

The factual backdrop giving rise to the present appeal is as follows.

The Respondent/Decree Holder had instituted Consumer Complaint No.

CC/34/2006 before the Learned District Commission alleging deficiency in service

on the part of the present Appellant. The complaint came to be allowed vide Final

Order No.30 dated 26.03.2010 directing the Appellant to pay a total sum of

##PAGE2##

Rs.7,29,099/- inclusive of compensation and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- and

Rs.5,000/- respectively within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the

amount was to carry interest @10% per annum till full realization.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.

The appeal stood dismissed. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing Revision Petition No.808 of

2012. During pendency of the revision petition, the Appellant was directed to deposit

50% of the decretal amount together with interest, quantified at Rs.4,37,019/-,

before the Learned District Commission. Such direction was complied with.

Ultimately, the Revision Petition also came to be dismissed by order dated

18.11.2019 passed by the National Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant paid a

further sum of Rs.3,64,550/- towards balance decretal amount and Rs.4,07,737/-

towards interest.

Meanwhile, the Respondent/Decree Holder had initiated Execution Application

No.57/2010 for execution of the decree passed in CC/34/2006. During pendency of

the said execution proceeding, the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 came to be

passed.

Facts Leading to the Impugned Order

It appears from the records that the matter was fixed on 26.07.2023 specifically for

filing statement of accounts by the Judgment Debtor. However, no such statement

was filed on that date. Learned Advocate appearing for the Judgment Debtor prayed

for adjournment for filing relevant papers and updated statement of account. The

said prayer was opposed by the Decree Holder.

The Learned District Commission nevertheless granted time subject to payment of

cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Decree Holder. While doing so, the Learned Commission

also observed that though the Judgment Debtor had allegedly deducted 10% of the

interest amount towards tax deduction at source, no document had been filed

showing deposit of the said deducted amount with the Income Tax Department in

favour of the Decree Holder.

Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant

##PAGE3##

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the decree passed in

CC/34/2006 has already been fully satisfied and nothing further remains payable. It

was argued that the entire decretal amount together with accrued interest had been

paid in terms of the order as affirmed by the National Commission.

The principal grievance of the Appellant is directed against the observation made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top