(Passed on 9/3/2017)

Per Mr. Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President. 

1. The counsel for OP Nos. 2 submits that the complainant filed execution application proceeding under Section 27/72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the execution of judgment and order passed in consumer complaint case No. 108/2007, decided on 17/11/2007 holding that the OP No. 2/Kanyaka Nagri Sahakari Bank shall deliver the loan account statement within 15 days to the complainant and the OP No. 1/ Sai Tractors shall pay Rs. 3,58,532/- along with interest from 27/9/2003 to OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 shall pay, an amount received by way of installments towards loan account received from OP No. 1 to the complainant along with interest and the OP No. 1 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental torture and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The parties have preferred respective appeals before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench by way of First Appeal A/07/1050 and A/07/1096 but the Hon’ble Commission have dismissed both appeals on 5/5/2017 and order passed in CC/108/2007 is confirmed.
3. OP No. 1/Sai Tractors has not complied the judgment and order passed on 17/11/2007, passed in CC/108/2007. Therefore the OP No. 2/Kanyaka Nagri Sahakari Bank had filed Criminal Execution bearing No. 70/2018 and OP No. 1 has complied the judgment and order and deposited Rs. 9,02,348/- in Commission along with interest and the OP No. 2/ bank, thereafter received Rs. 9,17,261/- as per order of Commission, dated 20/11/2019. The OP No. 2/bank deposited an amount of Rs. 9,17,261/- in complainant’s loan account  bearing No. 000300930000001 on 31/01/2020 and therefore complied the judgment and order passed in CC/108/2007, dated 17/11/2007. The complainant Mr. Vikas Gangreddiwar  has obtained loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 27/09/2005  for the repayment of monthly installments of Rs. 6640/- and the repayment period was 27/10/2005 to 26/9/2012 but the complainant failed to pay the installments amount regularly. Therefore the complainant’s account become NPA and therefore the complainant has filed a case against bank bearing No. 133/2016 against the recovery of loan amount. The interim application filed by complainant before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur has been dismissed on 11/10/2016, restraining the OP/bank to recover the loan amount for non compliance  of interim order.
4. The counsel for complainant submits that the complainant had purchased tractor from OP No. 1 and obtained loan from OP No. 2 in the year 2005 of Rs. 4,00,000/- . The complainant after three months from the delivery of tractor had gone for servicing but the OP No. 1 failed to deliver the tractor. Therefore the complainant has filed a complaint case bearing No. 108/2007 before Commission. The complainant has deposited Rs. 3,50,000/- with OP No. 2/bank and OP No. 1 has given Rs. 9,02,348/- to OP/bank along with interest at the rate of 10 percent and the bank has credited the amount in loan account.  The complainant has paid more than Rs. 12,50,000/- to OP/bank  but still loan account of complainant is outstanding. Therefore, the act of OP No. 2 amounts to deficiency in service for keeping the loan account outstanding and non compliance of judgment and order passed in CC/108/2007, dated 17/11/2007 and therefore the application filed by OP No. 2/bank for dismissal of execution proceeding is deserves to be dismissed with cost.
5. The OP No. 2/bank has filed execution proceeding bearing No. 06/20 for the execution of judgment and order passed in complaint case No. 108/2007, dated 17/11/2007 and the OP No. 1/Sai Tractors  has deposited an amount along with interest and deposited amount of Rs. 9,17,261/- has been withdrawn from OP No. 2 as per order passed by Commission on 20/11/2019 and deposited an amount in complainant’s tractor loan account on 31/01/2020. The complainant is irregular in repayment of loan amount, hence the complainant’s account become NPA account. Therefore the complainant has filed proceeding against recovery of loan bearing case No. 133/2016 before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur and non compliance of interim order bearing case No. 804/2016 from complainant which was filed before tribunal came to be dismissed for non compliance of direction of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. Therefore the OP No. 2 has every right to recover arrears of loan amount and it is the duty of complainant to pay outstanding loan amount by approaching to the bank. Therefore there is no dis-obeyance of judgment and order passed by Commission in 108/2007, passed on 17/11/2007 by OP Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore the present execution application is disposed of  against OP Nos. 1 and 2 as per following order.

ORDER

1. The Execution Application No. 06/20 is disposed of against OP Nos. 1 and 2.  
2. No order as to cost.