Orissa High Court
Magma Fincrop Limited vs Mr. Fagu Oram on 25 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13859 Of 2019
(Through hybrid mode)
Magma Fincrop Limited .... Petitioner
Mr. R.Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Mr. Fagu Oram .... Opposite Party
Mr. T.Nanda, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
25.03.2022
Order No.
06. 1. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, the writ petition is directed against order dated 20th June,
2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sambalpur, in execution, as confirmed in revision order dated 11th
December, 2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Cuttack. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in
Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani reported in (2019) 6
SCC 424 to submit, the writ petition is maintainable.
2. He submits further, by order dated 30th April, 2015 made by the
Commission in First Appeal no.741 of 2012 (Sri Fagu Oram (Retd.
Post Master) Vs. General Manager, M/s. Reliance General Insurance
// 2 //
Company Limited and another) there was direction upon his client to
pay the insurance pay out to opposite party therein after deducting its
dues.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of
opposite party and submits, it will appear from both impugned
orders that there was finding on fact regarding his client having
repaid the loan and, therefore, there does not survive contention
that the financer could deduct anything from the insurance pay
out. Both, the District Forum and State Commission, had,
therefore, directed payment of the deducted amount of
Rs.1,01,427/- with interest. He submits, there be no interference.
4. It appears from impugned order dated 20th June, 2016
passed by the Forum that the execution proceeding arises out of
order dated 31st July, 2012. This order was impugned in the First
Appeal and dealt with on said order dated 30th April, 2015. By
said order following was said.
"According to the respondent - finance a sum of
Rs.1,91,477.46 was pending due against the appellant
towards delayed payment charges as on 18.4.2011. The
District Forum rightly accepted the statement unilaterally
prepared by the appellant particularly when the amount of
payment was not irregular including the month.
In view of the argument advanced by counsel of
parties, in our considered opinion, the settled amount ought to
have been brought to the notice of the appellant, before it was
paid to the financer-respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is
directed to pay the balance amount with interest at the rate of
// 3 //
9 % per annum from the date it received the settled amount
from respondent no.1, after deducting their dues to the
appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to this extent
and the impugned order is set aside."
It is not clear from above extract there was adjudication on the claimed
outstanding of Rs.1,91,477.46/- said to be due from opposite party to
petitioner (financer) on account of delayed payment charges. What
appears is, admittedly there was no outstanding on principal. However,
the amount Rs.1,91,477.46/-, claimed by the financer to be outstanding
does not match with retained amount of Rs.1,01,427/-, retained from
the insurance pay out on the balance made over to opposite party. It
must also be added that elsewhere in the appellate order, it carries no
adjudication on calculation of the alleged outstanding on delayed
payment. If anything, procedure adopted by the Commission in
adjudication of the first appeal appears to be illegal and irregular but
that has not been impugned in this writ petition.
5. In the circumstances, the executing Forum made adjudication
and came to conclusion that nothing was due and payable on account
of the loan. It directed payment of the withheld amount along with
interest. In revision the direction was upheld.
6. Court has perused both impugned orders. Parties were
represented. The orders carry reasons to show adjudication. There is
// 4 //
no ground made out for interference in judicial review.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
