RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.103 of 2000

Dildar Nagar Cold Storage & Ice Plant Private

Limited, Ghazipur Bajriya, Mr. A.K. Sharma

Alias Dabbu s/o Sri Baleshwar Rai, Dildar Nagar

Cold Storage, Ghazipur.                                ...Revisionist.

Versus

Dev Narain Singh s/o Manager Singh,

R/o Village, Gharodia, Post, Deveka,

Pargana, Jamania, District, Ghazipur.        ….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Sri V.P. Sharma for the revisionist.

None for the respondent.

Date 29.11.2017   

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This revision stems out of the order passed by the Forum below on 14.7.2000 in execution case no.8 of 1999.

 The facts leading to this revision, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had stored 132 bags of potatoes with the appellant/OP out of which he had taken out 14 bags and the rest 118 bags only were kept there. When the complainant went to take the rest of the bags of potatoes then he was informed that the potatoes got spoiled but when the complainant asked for compensation then they did not do anything hence, he filed a complaint in the Forum wherein the revisionist/OP contested the matter mentioning in his WS that the complainant himself did not care to take the potatoes from the Cold Storage and

(2)

there was no deficiency on their part. The complainant had also not paid the rent of the Cold Storage hence, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The ld. Forum has passed the order on 20.3.1998 for payment of Rs.9,780.00 by the revisionist to the complainant within one month else to pay interest @ 18% p.a. It appears that the order was not complied with, hence, an execution no.8 of 1999 was filed wherein the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order on 14.7.2000 as under:-

"इस इजरा की कार्यवाही में दिनांक 3.5.2000 को निर्णित ऋणी को प्रश्‍नगत आदेश दिनांकित 20.3.1998 का अनुपालन न किये जाने के कारण उसे एक माह के साधारण कैद की सजा का आदेश दिया गया था परन्‍तु‍ मा0 राज्‍य आयोग के प्रशासनिक आदेश के अनुपालन में, जिसके द्वारा कोअर्सिव मेजर्स अपनाये जाने की मुमानियत मा0 राज्‍य आयोग की नियमित बैठकें न होने तक की गयी थी। वारण्‍ट नहीं भेजा गया था। आयोग की बैठकें अब नियमित रूप से हो रही हैं। अत: आदेश दिनांक 3.5.2000 के अनुसार मुख्‍य न्‍यानिक दण्‍डाधिकारी, गाजीपुर को आदेश भेजा जाय। आदेश का अनुपालन करने के पश्‍चात अनुपालन आख्‍या मुख्‍य न्‍यायिक दण्‍डाधिकारी द्वारा दिनांक 24.7.2000 तक प्रस्‍तुत की जाय। पत्रावली  अग्रेतर आदेश हेतु दिनांक 24.7.2000 को पेश हो।"

Feeling aggrieved with this order that this revision has been filed.

Heard counsel for the revisionist and perused the records. None appeared for the respondent/complainant.  

          In this case, the impugned order dated 14.7.2000 has been passed in execution no.8 of 1999 as the order passed in complaint case no.365 of 1997 was not complied with by the revisionist/OP. It is argued by the ld. counsel for

(3)

the revisionist that a joint application under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable as section25 of the Consumer Protection Act relates to execution of orders in the same manner as it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein. Therefore, section 25 is of civil nature whereas section 27 is an independent section wherein there is provision for penalty and imprisonment but ld. Forum has passed order ignoring the aforesaid facts but we find that in an application for non-compliance of the orders, the Forum is empowered to proceed under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act for recovery of an amount by way of an attachment order to be issued against the person against whom, the order has been passed and in the instant case, a recovery certificate could be issued for the amount due against the revisionist/OP. Since section 27 provides for penalty and imprisonment for not complying an order passed against a trader or person who fails to comply the order passed by the District Forum and since in the instant case, the revisionist/OP did not comply with the orders, therefore, the impugned order was passed which appears to be in consonance with the order passed on 3.5.2000 which is not on record but mentioned in the impugned order itself. Therefore, there does not appear to be any illegality in passing the impugned order as the revisionist has miserably failed to show as to what order was passed on 3.5.2000. Besides, it also appears that the revisionist has not in fact complied with the orders. Therefore, there

(4)

does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned order passed on 14.7.2000. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.       

ORDER

          The revision is dismissed.

No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                         (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                               Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.2