No. 3/09.02.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner is present through Ld. Advocate Mr. Barun Prasad.  O.P. enters appearance by filing Vokalatnama through Mr. Partha Dutta along with Mr. Madhusudan Roy and Shankar Roy are present.

This is a revision application filed challenging the order No. 6 dated 05.11.2008 passed by CDF Birbhum in CF Case No. Ex(Cr.)/2008 arising out of CF Case No. 60/2000.  Admittedly the execution case has been started against the judgement of the Forum below dated 30.11.2004.  The ordering portion whereof is as follows :

“that the petitions filed the consumers against the O.P. No.1 is allowed on contest and against the O.P. No. 3 is allowed ex parte.  O.P. no.1 and O.P. no.3 are severally and jointly responsible for the supply of defective machines to the consumers and they are liable to comply with the order in this Forum court severally or jointly.  They are directed to repair the machines and its parts to the entire satisfaction of the consumer within 15 days where repair is possible and where it is not possible they are to replace the machines and its parts or to pay back the amount received by the O.P. no.1 along with 10% interest as stated above.  There is no order as to cost”.

Facts are also admitted that this judgement has since become final as no appeal or revision is pending before any superior Forum.  It is also stated by both sides that original execution case was started under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has been ultimately dismissed and thereafter the present execution case has been started under Section 27 for non-compliance of the judgement sought to be executed.  On perusal of the impugned order we do not find any irregularity as we agree with the view taken by the Executing Forum about two options for execution, one under Section 25(3) and the other under Section 27, both of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We are also of the view of dismissal of the proceeding under Section 25 does not bar the other proceeding under Section 27.  Therefore, we agree with the view taken for rejection of the objection raised by the present Revisionist.  We feel no interference is required to be made.  On the other contention of Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionistt as regards not making the other JDR a party in the execution proceeding as the point was not taken before the Forum below, we have not entered into that question and the parties are at liberty to urge the same before the Executing Forum.  Revision application is thus dismissed.