Haryana

Bhiwani

5ex/2010

Ram Kala - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Sihag

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

E.A. No. 05 of 2010

 

Ramakalan Sihag            Vs     DHBVNL etc.

 

Present:-     Sh. Naresh Sihag, Advocate for DH.

None for JDs.

 

                   This execution application was filed by the DH on 13.01.2010 for the compliance of the statement on behalf of the JD on 01.05.2009 in the complaint No. 07 of 2009.  Since the filling of this execution it is being adjourned time and again for the implementation of the statement made by the JD.

                   On 09.12.2015, the counsel for the DH stated at Bar that the JD has implemented their statement on 27.07.2010, but submitted for the contempt proceedings against the JDs for the delay in complying with their statement made by them on 01.05.2009 before this District Forum in the complaint No. 07 of 2009.

                   We have heard the counsel for the DH.  He has filed the written arguments.  From the perusal of the record it is revealed that the account of the DH was overhauled by JDs and a credit of Rs. 5842/- and Rs. 114/- has been given to the DH on 04.10.2010.  Therefore, the execution application of DH must have been disposed of in the year 2010, but it was not disposed of.  We are unable to understand, why the execution application is being adjourned for the compliance of the order by the JDs.  Suprisingly, the JDs never informed this Court or moved any application that the statement dated 01.05.2009 has been implemented by the JDs, by overhauling the account of the complainant and a credit of Rs. 5842/- and Rs. 114/- has been given to him but it was seeking the adjournments for the compliance of the order.  On the other side the DH prior to 09.12.2015 never informed this District Forum about the compliance of the statement by the JDs.  It shows the lethargic attitude of the JDs towards the orders passed by the Court.  The officials of the JDs seems not to be serious for the orders passed by the Court and they are taking it in a very casual manner.  It is a clear cut case of abouse of the process of law and unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court.  Considering the facts of the case, we impose a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the JDs.  The JDs are directed to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- with this District Forum immediately.  The controlling authority of the JD is directed to recover the amount of fine from the salary of the errying official (s) of the JD.  The Superintendent of this office is directed to ensure the compliance of the order by the JDs.  With abovesaid observation, the execution application of the DH is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                                                                   08.02.2016

                   Member