MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Decree Holder challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in EA/240/2015 arising out the Complaint Case No. 214/2015 wherein the Ld. District Forum directed the Appellant/Decree Holder to go to his house along with Respondent/Judgment Debtor and take all necessary steps on his part for having the subject washing machine repaired by the Respondents/Judgment Debtors.

          Both the Appellant/Decree Holder and Respondents/Judgment Debtors were given a deadline of 13.01.2016 by which, as ordered, they were to take their respective steps to ensure that the machine was repaired within the given time limit.

          Heard the Appellant in person and the Respondent/Judgment Debtor No. 3.  The appeal was ordered to be heard ex parte against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide order No. 6 dated 28.08.2017.

          The submission of the Appellant/Decree Holder was directed mainly against the Respondent/Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 and 2 because of their lapses to comply with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complaint Case No. 214/2015 within the deadline specified therein.

          As contended, the above-mentioned execution case was filed against the Respondents/Judgment Debtors because of their non-compliance of the order passed in the complaint case due to their own lapses.

          The Ld. District Forum, as further contended, did not act upon its own order by not directing the Respondents/Judgment Debtors to comply with the penal provisions for non-compliance as per directions in the complaint case and passed the impugned order which, as contended, was needed to be set aside.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Judgment Debtor No. 3 submitted that there was, in fact, no direction upon the Respondent/Judgment Debtor No. 3 in the impugned order.  Therefore, his client may be exonerated from the charges in the complaint proceedings.

          Perused the papers on record.  Running page No. 58, being the communication made to the Appellant/Decree Holder by the Respondents/Judgment Debtors to let them know the convenient date on which the Appellant/Decree Holder would be able to handover to the Respondents/Judgment Debtors the subject machine for repairing the same in terms of the order of the complaint case.

          Running page No. 59 indicated further that the Appellant/Decree Holder, most surprisingly, instead of giving date as sought for in the above communication by the Respondents/Judgment Debtors wanted the Respondents/Judgment Debtors to communicate their convenient date for receiving the said machine.

          The Respondents/Judgment Debtors’ subsequent letter dated 05.11.2015, running page 61, communicating therein the dates for receiving the machine for repairing purposes also did not help resolve the crux of the prevailing impasses, as, what was alleged, the said letter intended to communicate through messenger service technician to the Appellant/Decree Holder could not be delivered because of willful non-acceptance of the Appellant/Decree Holder.

          A critical analysis of the prevailing scenario raises doubt about the Respondents/Judgment Debtors’ sole responsibility in the alleged non-compliance of the order passed in the complaint case.  We are, rather, convinced that the Appellant/Decree Holder’s non-cooperation was equally, if not more, responsible to drag the issue to such a pass where the position of the Respondents/Judgment Debtors was jeopardized as a defiant not for his folly alone.  The Appellant/Decree Holder, this way, could manage to secure a position of raising claim for deriving benefit through application of penal provision as enunciated in the order of the complaint case and thereby deriving an unlawful enrichment.

          Such being the circumstances, we appreciate the assessment made by the Ld. District Forum while forming opinion to pass the impugned judgment and order.  The impugned judgment and order; however, needs to be modified only to the extent of extending the deadline for compliance fixed therein and also exonerating the Respondent/O.P. No. 3 from the purview of the order as there was no specific direction upon the said Respondent in the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum in complaint case.

          Hence, ordered, that the appeal be and the same stands allowed in part.  Both the Appellant/Decree Holder and the Respondent/Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to ensure completion of the repairing of the machine in strict adherence to the manner prescribed in the impugned judgment and order by 15.07.2018 at the latest.  The Respondent/Judgment Debtor No. 3 is exonerated from the directions under the facts and circumstances already narrated hereinabove.  The impugned order stands modified accordingly.  No order as to cost.