Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

By this Appeal, Sri Raj Kumar Ram, Complainant of CC/573/2014 has challenged the order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) dated 14-12-2016 in EA/153/2015, that originated out of the afore-mentioned complaint case. Incidentally, by such order, the Ld. District Forum turned down the prayer of the above petitioner for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

Short case of the Appellant is that, while passing the final order in complaint case no. CC/573/2014, the Ld. District Forum, apart from allowing cost and punitive damage together with order for refunding the sum of Rs. 3,92,400/-, also directed the Respondents to pay compensation for ruining the future of the Appellant by adopting unfair trade practice.  Against such order, the Respondents though moved an Appeal, the same was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 29-07-2016 passed in MA/6/2016 (in A/789/2015), thereby confirming the order passed in the complaint case.  Subsequently, the Appellant prayed for paying Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation.  However, the Ld. District Forum vide its impugned order, refused to grant such relief in favour of the Appellant.  Hence, this Appeal.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and perused the material on record.

It appears from the order passed in the complaint case that the Ld. District Forum although allowed compensation, it did not specify any value leading to the entire confusion. 

Be that as it may, against such backdrop, the course correction on the part of the Appellant would be to move a petition before the Ld. District Forum seeking due clarification in this regard within a reasonable period of time.  For some obscure reasons, he did not take appropriate remedial step.

Instead, he sought for such relief in course of pursuing the execution case.  Quite naturally, the Ld. District Forum, being the executing Forum, was not in a position to clear the ambiguity or allow such prayer. As a result, the Ld. District Forum rightly rejected the instant prayer of the Appellant.

There being no infirmity with such order, the same cannot be altered or set aside in this Appeal.

The Appeal, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.