ORDER NO. 12 DT. 12.02.2010

          This Execution Case arose out of judgement and order dt. 6.3.09 in this Commission Case No. 44/O/07 when the Decree Holder namely M/s. Ramkrishna Saha, filed this execution case stating inter alia that inspite of communication to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking compliance of the judgement and order as passed in S.C. Case No. 44/O/07, the Respondents deliberately and negligently did not convey any response thereto.  Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 namely M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Central Bank of India respectively, did not contest although notice was duly served, but no relief was prayed from their end.  Subsequent to the letter dt. 30.4.09 calling upon the Respondents to settle the claim and abide by the judgement and order of this Commission, the Respondents apparently chose not to take any action, when the Respondent Nos. 3, 7, 4 were approached regarding settlement of the claim and for other points of compliance, but no heed was paid to such request.  Thus, being hit by deliberate non-compliance of the judgement and order of this State Commission, the Decree Holder filed this Execution Application seeking claim on account of loss of stock as per Bank Statement for Rs. 29,63,171/- with loss of furniture and fittings in the shop amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and cost of Rs. 25,000/- totaling Rs. 30,38,171/- and with interest thereon for the period from January’06 to April, 30, 2009 with quarterly rests totaling Rs. 19,12,000/-, thus the grand total being Rs. 49,50,171/-.  Stating that the Decree Holder was further entitled to interest @ 15% from May’09 till realization of the entire claim, a prayer was made for arrest and detention of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, they being primarily responsible for settlement of the claim.  A direction was also sought for to the local police authority so that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are arrested and lodged in local jail with intimation to this Commission so that law could take its own course.

          The Respondents/Judgement Debtors namely National Insurance Co. and others entered appearance and stated inter alia that firstly, in the order of the State Commission in Case No. SC/44/O/2007 there was a simple direction that the Insurance Co. should reconsider the claim of the Decree Holder within 90 days, which was actually done and a joint meeting was called for when the Decree Holders refused to attend.  In the original complaint, the JDrs pointed out, there was no stipulation of the amount of loss and as such, quantification of the loss under Para-6 of the execution petition was absurd.  Further contending that there was a direction of payment of Rs. 500/- per day in default of payment in the event the amount of compensation for Rs. 25,000/- is not paid within 90 days, there