STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHATIBHAI NANABHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the application was filed by the respondent with two fold prayers and accepting the application, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed an order dtd. 15/9/2009, according to which, the complainant was to deposit the amount and once the amount is deposited, the tractor was directed to be returned back and if the said direction is not capable of being complied with, then deducting the depreciation for 10 years i.e. the date on which, the complainant has purchased the vehicle till the date the vehicle was seized, the amount should be returned with 6% interest. Being aggrieved, appeals and counter-appeals were filed by the petitioner and the respondent, which came to be decided by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dtd. 24/12/2014 with a minor modification of deleting the cost. The order dtd. 24/12/2014 has attained finality. Thereafter, the execution proceedings were initiated which led into passing of the order dtd. 7/7/2016, followed by the order dtd. 9/2/2018 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said order was not entertained by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the ground of jurisdiction and therefore, the writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.11300 of 2019 and other allied matters were filed before this Court and this Court quashed and set aside the order and remanded the matter to be decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order dtd. 26/8/2020. According to Mr.Meena, learned advocate, the Commission could not have interpreted the order dtd. 15/9/2009 and simply considered the order dtd. 7/7/2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr.Kumar Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the Commission, after interpreting the terms of the first order, has thought it fit not to interpret the terms of contract between the parties. It is submitted that the respondent has already submitted a proposal for settlement; however, nothing has been heard from the bank.

(3.) Mr.Meena, learned advocate states that necessary instructions shall be taken for which, some time may be granted.