KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 177/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 06.11.2024
(Against the Order in EA 17/16 in C.C. 241/2013 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- M/s AGM Industries represented by its Manager, Athipalayampirivu, Mariyalayam Convent, Church Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 006.
- Maruthan, Manager, M/s AGM Industries, Athipalayampirivu, Mariyalayam Convent, Church Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 006.
(By Adv. N.G. Mahesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Firozkhan, Nadanparambil, VishavarSerikkara, Kurittissery Village, Chengannur Taluk, Alappuzha District.
(By Adv. Sreeja Sasidharan)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties/judgment debtors in E.A. No. 17/2016 in C.C. No. 241/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha(for short “the District Commission”).
2. The respondent herein filed a complaint alleging that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in connection with the purchase of a chappati machine. The District Commission after evaluating the evidence tendered by both sides passed an order directing the appellants to rectify the defects of the chappathi machine and make it in perfect working condition to the satisfaction of the respondent. The District Commission further directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as costs. Thereafter, the respondent filed execution application before the District Commission as E.A. No. 17/2016. As per proceedings dated 15.02.2018, the execution court directed the appellants either to replace the machine with the same model along with fresh warranty or to refund its price, which is Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) with 8% interest from the date of order till realization. It was further directed that on replacing the new machine, the defective machine should be returned to the appellants. Aggrieved by the above said order passed by the execution court on 15.02.2018, this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. We have also gone through the order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 241/2013. It is clear from order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the execution court that the execution court had exceeded the jurisdiction and passed the order impugned, which ought to have been passed by the District Commission on the original side.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Meenakshi Saxena and another v. ECGC Ltd., reported in 2018 KHC 6450, held that the execution court cannot go beyond the decree. However, if difficulty arises when there is ambiguity in the decree with regard to the material aspects, then it becomes the bounden duty of the court to give effect to the decree. The execution court has to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretation and conscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree which is not permissible.
6. There is no dispute that the order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 241/2013 has become final, as no appeal has been filed by any of the parties challenging the said order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the costs and compensation ordered by the District Commission had been already paid. As per order dated 15.02.2018, the execution court had drawn a decree directing the appellants to replace the machine with a new machine with fresh warranty or to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) with 8% interest to the respondent. The above said direction amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction of the execution court, which is not contemplated under law. Since the execution court had exceeded its jurisdiction and passed an order different from the order passed on the original side, we are of the view that order dated 15.02.2018 of the execution court cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside the same.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the execution court in C.C. No. 241/2013 and the execution court is directed to execute the decree in terms of order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 241/2013. Needless to say that the execution court shall be at liberty to take coercive steps to get the order enforced.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
