PRABIR KR DAS Vs. UCO BANK MALDA BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Forum in an execution case. The Forum disposed of the execution case with the observation that the Bank is entitled to adjust the amount, if any, due to the Bank from the petitioner from the amount lying in deposit in the LBY A/c in the name of the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner filed a petition under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking to execute the final order passed by the Forum on 13.6.1996 directing the Bank to pay certain amount with interest. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has moved this Commission in appeal. It has been contended by the appellant that if any amount is due to the Bank from the petitioner the former can realise it by filing a civil suit and the Forum ought not to have directed adjustment of the amount due to the Bank against the amount which the appellant entitled to get from the Bank in pursuance of the judgment.

(3.) The appeal is resisted by the respondent-Bank challenging the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act against an order passed by the District Forum in a proceeding under Sec.25 of the Act. It has been contended that a huge amount is outstanding against the petitioner and the Bank can very well claim adjustment of this awarded amount from its dues from the petitioner as per Banking Rules and Procedure. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no appeal lies against an order passed under Sec.25 and/or 27 of the Act, as the proceeding under the two provisions are in the nature of execution proceeding. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in the case of C. S. Tomar V/s. Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. and Anr., 1999 2 CPJ 605 On a reference to this decision it appears that the mater was considered by the said Commission threadbare with reference to various provisions of the Act. It also appears that the said Commission agreed with the view taken by Haryana S. C. D. R. C. in the case of Kohinoor Carpets, Panipath and Others in coming to the conclusion that no appeal lies under Sec.15 held against the order passed by the District Forum in a proceeding under Sec.27 of the Act. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the aforesaid two Commissions and hold that the petitioner has no right of appeal against the impugned order.