KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 68/2016

ORDER DATED: 15.12.2022

                                           (Against the Order in E.A. 42/14 in C.C.77/2006 of CDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER:

Managing Director, M/s Kraftwork Solar Pvt. Ltd., Adithya, Gandhi Square, Poonithura, Kochi-682 317.

                  (By Adv. Asok Kumar J.S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Malabar Cancer Centre, Post Moozhikkara, Thalassery-670 111.

                             (By Adv. P. Sasi)

                                                          ORDER

SMT.BEENA KUMARY. A :MEMBER

            This revision petition is filed by the Judgment Debtors in E.P. No. 42/2014 in C.C. No. 77/2006 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.  The respondent is the decree holder/complainant in C.C. No. 77/2006.

2.  Brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that they had availed the service of the opposite party in installing solar water heater for the hospital.  They sought for the replacement of the defective tank and other accessories and to pay damages of Rs. 3,222/- per month.  The District Forum by its order dated 03.09.2010 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to replace the defective tank and other accessories of the system by a defect free tank with sufficient grade suitable for the use of water available at the premises with same guarantee or else to refund the price of the system paid by the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization of the amount.  Opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation together with an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

3.  The opposite party after the order of the District Forum had replaced the tank with a new one and also paid the amount of Rs. 30,000/- in compliance of the order of the District Forum.  The complainant after a long lapse filed the execution petition as E.A. No. 42/2014.  In the said petition the complainant had made new allegations and sought for replacement of the materials which were not part of the allegations in the original complaint.  An advocate commissioner was appointed in the execution proceedings who had filed a report without any basis.  Therefore, the revision petitioner has filed objections challenging the findings of the advocate commissioner who had exercised powers not vested with him.  The District Forum without appreciating the true facts and the original order under execution, passed the impugned order and held that the defects of the system are incurable and irreparable by the judgement debtor.  So directed the judgment debtor/revision petitioner to refund the price of the system as per the order dated 03.09.2010 to the decree holder within 30 days of the order.  

            4.  We have perused the entire records on file and find that the decree holder/complainant installed the system in the year 2004.  Due to the defects the complaint filed the case in the year 2006 as C.C. No. 77/2006.  The District Forum passed the order on 03.09.2010.  The District Forum directed the opposite party to replace the defective tank and other accessories of the system by a defect free tank with sufficient grade suitable for the use of water at the premises with the same guarantee or else to refund the price of the system paid by the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization of the amount and also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation together with an amount of Rs. 1000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order. After the order of the District Forum opposite party had replaced the tank with a new one and also paid the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation as per the order to the complainant.  But after a long lapse the complainant has filed the execution petition as E.A. No. 42/2014 i.e; after four years of the order and also the complainant accepted the compensation amount and received new tank and other accessories.  The complainant/decree holder alleged that the system was not working properly and the commissioner appointed by the District Forum in the E.P. stage reported that the defects of the system were not yet rectified.  Hence the Forum directed the Judgment debtor to refund the price of the system as per the order dated 03.09.2010.  Against this order the opposite party/judgment debtor has filed this revision petition. 

5.  In this case the Judgment Debtor complied with the order in the year 2010.  The Decree Holder already enjoyed the benefit of the order and thereafter filed the execution petition after more than 4 years and the execution court passed the order in the year 2016.The system was installed in the year 2004.  The complainant has been using the facility for more than 12 years.  At this stage the order in the Execution Application dated 13.07.2016 is not justified.

6.  The opposite party had complied with the order in the year 2010 and satisfied the decree.  Therefore, the complainant has no right to claim the benefit of the order once again.  Hence the order dated 13.07.2016 in E.A No. 42/2014 is set aside.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed.  No order of costs. 

JUSTICE   K.SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

                                                T.S.P.MOOSATH                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                            RANJIT . R                          : MEMBER

                                                            BEENA KUMARI. A          : MEMBER

                                                            RADHA KRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER

jb