MEERA DEVI Vs. JAVIS FINANCE & SECURITIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions are taken up together for disposal In the original complaint No. 339/1999, both the revisionist and the opposite party were the complainants. Smt.Meera Devi purchased a truck with the help of loan of. Rs 2,50,000 sanctioned to her by Javis Finance and Securities Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Meera Devi had also invested more than Rs. 2,50,000 in purchasing the said truck. Unfortunately the truck had been stolen shortly after it had been purchased. The owner of the truck Smt. Meera Devi and the Finance Company both had jointly filed complaint No 339/1999 against the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The complaint for recovery of Rs 3,50,000 was decreed If was also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 18.5.1998. The appeal filed against the judgment dated 27.2.2001 of the District Consumer Forum, Bulandshahr was dismissed. Then commenced the execution proceedings initiated by Smt.Meera Devi and the Finance Company, but somehow the entire sum, i.e. Rs. 4,96,684, was released in favour of Smt. Meera Devi.

(2.) THE Finance Company felt aggrieved of the said release and, therefore, preferred an application before the District Consumer Forum praying for recall of the release order so that the dues which would have fallen to the share of the said company would have also been released in its favour. However, the said application was rejected. The Finance Company then filed a revision No. 139/SC/ 2004 and questioned the propriety of the release order as well as the order of rejection passed on its application. The said revision was allowed on 10.7.2007 and it was directed that Smt. Meera Devi shall deposit the entire sum with the District Consumer Forum and subsequent to such deposit the accounts between the two would be settled and money released as per entitlements. In the execution petition No. 49/2001 before the District Consumer Forum, bailable warrant was issued against Smt. Meera Devi on 21.5.2010 as she failed to deposit the money in compliance of this Commission's order dated 10.7.2007. However, the bailable warrant was stayed vide order dated 16.8.2010 passed in revision No 150/2010 and Smt. Meera Devi was directed to appear before the Forum in compliance to its order Smt. Meera Devi has not yet appeared before the District Consumer Forum, rather an application was moved on her behalf, for a direction to be issued to the Finance Company to submit a statement of accounts. The said application has been rejected by means of the order dated 21.12.2010, now challenged in the other revision petition No. 1/SC/2011.

(3.) MR Anil Kumar Sharma/ learned Counsel for the revisionist has also prayed for recall of this Commission's order dated 10.7.2007 passed in revision petition No. 139/SC/2004. However, the said order was passed on the basis of a very sound reasoningthat the amount deposited by the Insurance Company should have been released in the ratio of their share in favour of Smt. Meera Devi and the Finance Company. Even if Smt. Meera Devi had not appeared in the revision petition, the judgment passed in the revision by this Commission was just, reasonable and sustainable. After a lapse of 31/2 years it cannot be recalled as the said judgment did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. Insofar as the rights and claims of Smt. Meera Devi are concerned, the District Consumer Forum would be competent to adjudicate upon them after settling of accounts. It is a matter of principle that both the decree holders, namely Smt. Meera Devi and the Finance Company, should have got their dues but as is obvious, the Finance Company did not get a single penny out of the money deposited by the Oriental Insurance Company. It has been submitted before us that only four instalments, totalling to Rs. 47,560 were received by the Finance Company before the truck had been stolen. As per details of the accounts placed before us, the amount of 22 instalments more is still outstanding against her and calculating her liability accordingly a sum of Rs. 6,37,232 is said to be outstanding against her. In these two revisions we would not like to open the accounts of two parties and go into the details of their entitlements, but certainly the District Consumer Forum will look into the details of the accounts to be furnished by both the parties in support of their respective contentions.