23-09-2014: Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material placed before us. We have also perused the impugned order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in execution application no. 39 of 2011. The final judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 87 of 2010 indicates that the revisionist – opposite party No. 1 was directed to rectify the defects in the vehicle and hand over the vehicle to the respondent No. 1 – complainant in a proper and perfect running condition and in case the same is not possible, then a new vehicle be made available to the respondent No. 1.

Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.11.2010, the revisionist did not prefer any appeal.

Now, this revision petition has been preferred against the order passed in the execution proceedings. The District Forum, by way of the impugned order, has directed the revisionist to rectify / remove the defects in the vehicle before the District Forum in a running condition.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are of the view that no jurisdictional error or illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the District Forum while passing the impugned order. The District Forum has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law and it can not be said that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity. We accordingly, do not find any force in the revision petition and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.