Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5836
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL
Soma Bhattacharjee, Presiding Member, Ananda Kumar Tiwari, Judicial Member
M/s. Endeavour – Appellant
Versus
Sri Prabirendra Mohan Mitra – Respondent
APPEAL EXECUTION NO. SC/19/AEA/32/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NEMO
For the Respondents: Swarajit Dey, Soni Ojha, Punam Chowdhury, Asha Ghosh
The Doctrine of Merger is not attracted when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn or by a non-speaking order; consequently, the original order remains operative and the judgment debtor remains liable for interest during the pendency of such proceedings.
Headnote:The matter involves an appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging an order passed by the District Commission in an execution application. The District Commission had previously directed the appellant to refund amounts and pay compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, along with 10% interest per annum. The appellant sought to avoid paying interest from the date of the original judgment until the date of realization, arguing that the 'Doctrine of Merger' applied because the matter had been through the State Commission, National Commission, and the Supreme Court. The primary issue is whether the Doctrine of Merger applies to exempt a judgment debtor from paying interest when a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is dismissed as withdrawn or by a non-speaking order. The court reasoned that the doctrine of merger only occurs when an appellate authority modifies, reverses, or sets aside the original decision. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that a non-speaking order of dismissal of an SLP does not substitute the order put in issue nor does it attract the doctrine of merger. That the Appeal under Section 27A of the Act of 1986 bearing No AEA/32/2022 is hereby dismissed on merit without any order as to cost.
ORDER
HON’BLE ANANDA KUMAR TIWARI
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Final Order/Judgement
| Date of Filing | Date of hearing | Date of Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| 20/07/2022 | 08/05/2026 | 23/06/2026 |
The Appellant/J.dr No.1 filed this Appeal Execution Application under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1986) challenging the impugned order being Order No42 dated 24/06/2022 passed by Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit-I (North) (hereinafter referred to as Hon’ble District Commission) in Execution Application No.48 of 2011. It is the contention of the Appellant that the Respondents Nos.1, 2 & 3 being the Complainants of the complaint case being No.CC/173/2007 filed a complaint against Appellant and Respondents Nos.4 & 5 alleging about deficiency in service stating the fact therein. It is stated that said complaint case was finally disposed of by passing order dated 03/02/2011by Hon’ble District Commission directing OP No 1 (Appellant herein) to refund Rs.87,500/- only to each of the complainants (respondents Nos 1, 2 & 3),pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the complainantson account of mental agony and also to pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants towards litigation cost and further directed Respondent No.4 (OP No 2 in complaint case)to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental agony to each of the complainants (Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 herein) and also directed the Appellant and the Respondent No.4 to pay interest @ 10% per annum if the payment as directed is not paid within the specified time.
It is further stated that though the Appellant contested the case by filing written version but Hon’ble District Commission did not look into the root of the dispute and passed order as above.
The Appellant stated that subsequently execution case being EA/48/2011 was filed by the Complainants as Decree holder (Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 herein). It is also stated that the Appellant also preferred appeal before Hon’ble State Commissionagainst the Order/Judgement dated 03/02/2011 being FA/217/2011, wherein Hon’ble State Commission upheld the Order/Judgement passed by Hon’ble District Commission by Order dated 13/06/2013.
The further case of Appellant is that the Order passed by Hon’ble State Commission in FA/217/2011 was further challenged by Appellant before the Hon’ble National Commission vide Revision Petition No.3235 of 2013 and after hearing the parties at length Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition by Order dated 23/10/2019 and the Appellant thereafter also preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) No.14630/2020 before Hon’ble Supreme Court but eventually the same was withdrawn by the Appellant and Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the Appellant to withdraw the SLP(C) by passing an Order dated 01/10/2021 dismissing the SLP.
It is stated that the Appellant appeared in the day to day proceeding in the execution case being EA/48/2011 and has paid an amount of Rs.2,62,500/- to the D.hrs. According to the Appellant on 24/06/2022 he filed an application for compliance of the Order/Judgement in terms of ‘Doctrine of Merger’. But Hon’ble District Commission was pleased to dismiss the same by passing order being No.42 dated 24/06/2022.
Contending the above and other facts as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal the Appellant preferred this Appeal on the grounds that Hon’ble District Commission wrongly held that the J.dr No.1 being the Appellant herein is liable to pay interest to the D.hrs and further that Hon’ble District Commission failed to appreciate the theory of ‘Doctrine of Merger’ and as such, the Order dated 24/06/2022 may be set aside. The Appellant further stated that Hon’ble District Commission failed to appreciate that the Appellant being the J.dr No.1 did not pray for waiver of interest but prayed for passing appropriate order in view of ‘Doctrine of Merger’ and as the same was not allowed by the Hon’b
