MANAGER N N TRAVELS Vs. V K HASIN KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether the Execution Court has got jurisdiction to order interest on the amount for which the Consumer Forum has passed the order. The opposite party challenges the order passed by the District Forum in favour of the complainant who sought to excute the said order. It is an admitted fact that, the amount mentioned in the order is deposited, though it was, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, only after 5 years of the order. The Execution Court has now awarded interest at the rate of 18% on the amount from 6.6.1993 onwards. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that, since the order of the District Forum did not contain a provision for payment of interest, the, Execution Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in awarding interest as indicated above. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 2177. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent urged that since the amount was not paid within 2 months of the order in obedience to the direction therein, it is only just and proper that interest is ordered @ 18% by the Execution Court.

(2.) The essential question to be adjudicated is, whether the Execution Court has jurisdiction to award interest which is not provided for in the order. In this juncture it is necessary to mention Sec.25 of the Consumer Protection Act which enjoins that the order can be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Court pending therein. This makes the provisions in the CPC for execution of the decree, are made applicable. It is settled position that the Execution Court cannot travel beyond the decree. Admittedly, no interest was awarded by the order. There is also no case that interest was prayed for in the complaint. Apart from the same inasmuch as the order does not make any provision for payment of interest, the Execution Court cannot award interest on any ground. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision observes "the Execution Court is bound by the terms of the decree, it cannot add or alter the decree on its notion of fairness of justice. The right of the decree-holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree. " When the law is as indicated above, the direction made by the Execution Court to pay interest cannot be supported. Therefore, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.