A.P. Chowdhri, President:
1. For the disposal of these two miscellaneous applications moved by Mr. S.V.R. Rao, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, it will be convenient to set out briefly the background of the case as follows :
2. In Complaint Case No. 210/90 this State Commission ordered the respondent M/s. Byford Leasing Limited to refund Rs. 93,681/- together with 12% interest thereon from the date of filing the complaint till repayment, besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. The respondent preferred an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission stayed recovery beyond Rs. 75,000/-. The amount was paid. With regard to the balance, a Bank Guarantee (BG) was furnished and the amount was payable after decision of CWP 1036 of 1995 filed by the respondent in the Delhi High Court. The National Commission dismissed the aforesaid appeal by its order dated 12.2.95. Delhi High Court dismissed the aforesaid petition on 25.9.96. The balance amount was accordingly released through the BG referred to above. It was at that stage that the applicant made application dated 14.10.96 for a direction to the respondent to collect the car after clearing outstanding amount of interest in addition to expenses incurred in maintaining the car. Reply has been filed to the application. In the reply it has been stated that the respondent has bona fide apprehensions that the applicant has caused deliberate damage or has failed to take proper care of the car out of spite and vendetta because of the litigation which has been pending. It has, therefore, been prayed that the delivery of the car be got effected in the presence of a Local Commissioner and the car be thoroughly got inspected and its present condition placed on record. In the rejoinder to the aforesaid reply, the applicant has opposed the appointment of a Local Commissioner for purpose of inspecting the car. His stand is that the car is required to be returned under order of the State Commission as well as National Commission which in the facts and circumstances of the case implied that the car be returned on as is where is basis. It has been added that in the present proceedings (sic.) in the nature of execution proceedings and it is not permissible to go beyond the order passed in the main case. The car, it has been pointed out, was never in a very good shape which compelled the applicant to knock the door of this Commission. And, in any case, a certain amount of deterioration was bound to take place because of passage of more than four and a half years that the car has been standing. It was described as absurd that the applicant has caused any deliberate damage to the car out of spite and vendetta. '
3. In the second application made by the applicant, the applicant has claimed balance of Rs. 6,611/- which includes Rs. 1,811/- on account of unpaid interest for the period 1.8.96 to 7.10.96 and the balance amount on account of garage charges paid or incurred by the applicant for keeping the car. In the reply, the respondent has reiterated the proposition that the Court cannot go behind the decree and vary the terms thereof at the stage of execution; that there was no order for payment of any garage/maintenance charges and that the applicant was not entitled to any such amount.
4. We have heard Mr. S.R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
5. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission dated 15.4.93, shows that the complainant's stand, that the car was not roadworthy, that it was an accidented car with rusted body and that the differential of the car was defective was substantially accepted and the complaint allowed and compensation awarded against the respondent. While dismissing the appeal by order dated 21.2.95, the National Commission affirmed the order passed by the State Commission and directed "The complainant to return the disputed car to the applicant". Neither the State Commission nor the National Commission appears to have envisaged inspection of the car at the time of its return to the respondent. Passing any such order as prayed at this stage will amount to going behind the decree, which is not permissible.
6. For the same reason, the applicant is not entitled to garage charges and charges for maintenance claimed by him. There is no such direction in the order by the State Commission or of the National Commission. The same cannot, however, be said with regard to the interest on the balance amount of Rs. 79,845/-. The applicant is clearly entitled to interest @ 12% per annum which was allowed by the State Commission and affirmed by the National Commission for the period 1.8.96 to 7.10.96 when the amount was actually received by the applicant. This works out to Rs. 1,811/-.
7. For these reasons both the applications are disposed of in these terms :
8. The car shall be returned by the applicant and accepted by the respondent in the presence of a Local Commissioner to be named by the Commission when the parties appear in pursuance to copies of this order being received by them. The Local Commissioner shall effect the delivery in his presence and certify this fact to the Commission. He shall be paid fee by both the parties equally. If the respondent fails to turn up to take the delivery or refuses to take delivery, this fact shall be intimated so that further appropriate order can be passed. Before taking delivery, the respondent shall pay Rs. 1,811/-to the applicant and produce the receipt either before this Commission or before the Local Commissioner.
9. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties.
Applications disposed of.