No. 5/29.07.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Heard Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist and Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate opposing the revision.  We have considered the impugned order assessing the scope of contention by the Executing Forum in the impugned order.  The final direction in the judgement of the State Commission which is being now executed, requires a consideration and, therefore, the relevant excerpt of the said judgement is reproduced below :

“going by the foregoing discussion the Appellants are directed to remove the defects of the said vehicle, if any within 30 days from the date of this order and make it road worth to the satisfaction of the Respondent.  In case of failure of removal of the defects in the said vehicle, the O.Ps shall refund the cost of said vehicle within a period of two months from the date of this order”.

“Hence it is ordered that the appeal be allowed in part on contest however without any cost and the judment passed by the Forum below be modified as mentioned in the body of the judgment.  With the above observation the appeal be disposed of accordingly.  The office is directed to send down the copy of this judgment to the Ld. Forum below and issue the same upon the recorded Advocates free of cost immediately”

From the facts available on records we find that JDR took certain steps for removal of the defects of the disputed motorcycle but the Decree Holder did not record his satisfaction. Therefore, in view of the language used by the State Commission in the final judgement as quoted hereinabove, there being no satisfaction of the Respondent as regards roadworthiness of the motorcycle, it seems that the other consequence provided in the judgement has to follow.  Mrs. Mukhopadhyay strongly contended that in the impugned judgement absence of the satisfaction of the Decree Holder has not been recorded.  But on perusal of the impugned judgement we are of the opinion that the observation “since the Complainant – Decree Holder is not satisfied of the removal of the defects in the motorcycle as directed by the Hon’ble State Commission” indicates clearly the stand of the Decree Holder and is “no satisfaction” in the work done to the motorcycle and its roadworthiness.  As regards the requirement expressed by the Forum below for clarification by this State Commission in view of expiry of the time for removal of the defects, we are of the opinion that in the judgement of the State Commission 30 days time was granted to the JDR concerned for removal of the defects and the lower Forum in execution proceeding was not bound by the said time period.  But in any event as the satisfaction of the Decree Holder is not there, as held by us, the consequences provided in the judgement in execution requiring refund of the cost of the vehicle is required to be executed.  With the said direction the impugned order is set aside and the Forum below is directed to proceed following the observation made above and in accordance with law.