Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4436
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH
Sunita Yadav, President, Monika Malik, Member
SEEMA VYAS – Appellant
Versus
CHABRA CHEVEROLET – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/FA/824/2019 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2019 | Execution Case No. 06/2018 | C.C.No.02/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash Sahu
For the Respondents: Chitra Sharma
An executing court cannot go beyond the scope of the original decree or modify the terms of the award during execution proceedings, especially when the original order has attained finality.
Headnote:The matter involves an appeal against an order passed in an execution case where the District Commission dismissed the application, holding that the original order had been complied with. The original order directed the insurance company to pay a difference amount after deducting 5% from Rs. 9,57,000/-. The court found that the resulting amount of Rs. 9,09,150/- had been deposited and received by the decree holder. The primary issue is whether the appellant could seek a modification of the calculation (deducting Rs. 2,000/- instead of 5%) during the execution stage. The court held that since the original order was not challenged, it attained finality, and established that an "executing court cannot go beyond the decree." This appeal sans merit is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of execution proceedings and the claim for unpaid balance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding calculation errors and the limits of relief in execution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's verification of payment compliance based on the original order. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. the principle that an executing court cannot exceed the original decree. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 12) |
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2019
(Arising out of order dated 18.10.2018 passed in Execution Case No.06/2018 by District Commission, Jhabua)
SEEMA VYAS,
D/O LATE RAMCHANDRA VYAS,
R/O HOUSE NO.89, GOPAL COLONY,
JHABUA (M.P.) … APPELLANT.
Versus
1. CHHABRA CHEVERLOT CHHABRA AUTOLINK PRIVATE LIMITED, 10, VISHNUPURI, INDORE (M.P.)
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE OD CLAIM SECTION, 4/5 PALASIA CHOURAHA, SHEKHAR SENTAL, THIRD FLOOR 313 TO 336, MANORAMAGANJ, A.B.ROAD, INDORE-452 001 ... RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE :
HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Akash Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent no.1.
Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
O R D E R
(Passed On 08.05.2026)
Per Say Justice SunitaYadav, President:
This is an appeal by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhabua (for short ‘District Commission) in Execution Case No. 06/2018 whereby the execution case filed by her has been dismissed as the order under execution has already been complied with.
2. The appellant/decree holder has filed an execution case no.06/2018 for compliance of order dated 30.05.2018 passed in C.C.No.02/2017 by District Commission. It is submitted that by the order dated 30.05.2018 the District Commission directed the opposite party no,.2-insurance company to pay the difference amount after deducting 5% from the disputed amount of Rs.9,57,000/- within one month.
3. It is submitted by the appellant/decree holder that in compliance of impugned order still a sum of Rs.49,850/- is recoverable from the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-judgment debtor-insurance company.
4. The respondent/judgment debtor-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the respondent has already complied with the order under execution and nothing remains to be paid.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/decree holder argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is further argued that the District Commission in its original order dated 30.05.2015 has wrongly calculated the amount and directed that after deducting 5% from Rs.9,57,000/-, the difference amount be paid whereas the complainant/appellant was entitled to get Rs.9,55,000/- i.e. after deducting Rs.2,000/- from Rs.9,57,000/-. It is further argued that still the complainant/appellant has to receive an amount of Rs.49,850/- from the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-insurance company and therefore, the District Commission has wrongly dismissed the execution case on the ground that the appellant/decree holder had already received the amount as awarded by the District Commission in order dated 30.05.2018 by allowing the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order be set-aside and the opposite party no.2- insurance company be directed to pay remaining amount with interest, compensation and costs.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/judgment debtor-insurance company argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the rules and calculation. It is further argued that the appellant/decree holder cannot get relief beyond the order passed in her favour in original complaint and therefore the District Commission has rightly dismissed the execution case as she has received the amount as a
