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
##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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.