JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
1. Whether the beneficiary of an order under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is entitled to get interest for the delayed disbursement of the amounts awarded in the order, if not otherwise originally provided for, is the issue to be considered in this case.
2. The District Forum passed the order dated 1.6.99, ordering damages and costs. However, the same could be executed only in 2003, The Forum ordered interest at the stage of execution and hence the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent is the complainant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in O.P. No. 2/97. The complainant was disposed of by order dated 1.6.1999. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
In the result, this complaint is allowed and the second opposite party is directed to deposit (Rupees two lakhs only) in the name of the minor Aswin Mohandas in a nationalised bank as a fixed deposit. The mother of the child is permitted to draw interest on the deposit amount and utilise the same for the education and future treatment of the child. The child will be eligible to withdraw the amount on his attaining majority. In addition to this, the complainant will be entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) spent for treatment as special damages and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony. Time for deposit is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The second opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
3. The matter was pursued in appeal before the State Commission and National Commission by the opposite parties. The appeals were dismissed. The complainant claimed interest from the date of the order of the District Forum, Thrissur namely 1.6.1999. The Forum in the process of execution passed the impugned orders directing payment of interest and ordering arrest and detention. In Ext.P4 the stand taken by the Forum is that since the opposite parties did not deposit the amount, the complainant is entitled to get interest. On refusing to pay the interest the order under Section 27 was passed. Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act regarding enforcement of order passed under the Act read as follows:
25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission: – Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit, pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-
a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personalty works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for, execution.
27. Penalties: – Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made fails or or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to then thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum amount specified in this section.
4. The order of the Forum can be executed in the same manner as a decree of the Civil Court is executed. It needs no elaborate discussion to hold that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. That is a well settled proposition. The Executing court is only to execute decree as it is and cannot improve on the same. Notion of fairness or equity cannot help the court to alter the terms of the decree at that stage. Section 27 prescribes only for a penalty in case the order is not complied with, imprisonment. The opposite party is not visited with any other consequence. Of course the Forum is entitled to award costs but that is not what is done in this case.
5. A similar issue was considered by the apex court in the matter of execution of a decree of the Civil court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Dayal Sharma . Para 3 of the judgment reads as follows:
3. There is no dispute between the parties that the decree which was put to execution did not contain any order or direction for the payment of any interest on the amount which was payable to the decree holder consequent to the declaration made by the Court decreeing the respondent’s suit. There is further no dispute that no relief for interest had been claimed by the respondent in the suit nor any such claim was discussed or awarded by the Court decreeing the suit. In the absence of pleadings and directions in the judgment or decree which was uruder execution, it was not open to the executing court to awards. The right of the decree holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree. The Execution Court has referred to a number of decisions where interest had been granted on the arrears of salary and pension. The Execution Court failed to appreciate that in those decisions direction for payment of interest had been issued by the Court while granting relief for reinstatement or payment of arrears of salary or pension. None of those decisions relate to the grant of interest by the Execution Court. No doubt the Courts have power to award interest on the arrears of salary or pension or other amount to which a Government servant is found entitled having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but that power cannot be exercised by the Execution Court in the absence of any direction in the decree.
In the light of the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Since the amounts ordered by the Forum have already been deposited, they cannot be visited with any other consequence of interest or imprisonment. The impugned orders are quashed and the Original Petition is allowed.