BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM–II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Misc. Application No.84 of 2012

in

Consumer Complaint No.780 of 2010

Rajesh Kumar        Vs.     IFB Industries Limited

PRESENT:

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Applicant/OP No.1.

Sh.Ranjan Lohan, Counsel for complainant

Dated the 1^st day of October, 2012

ORDER

1.         Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate, has filed power of attorney on behalf of OP No.1.

2.         This order will dispose of the application filed by OP No.1 praying therein that amount of Rs.11,000/- deposited vide order dated 10.9.2012 be released in favour of complainant and complainant be directed to return the appliance forthwith in the interest of justice.

3.         Reply to this application has been filed by the complainant wherein it has been mentioned that the amount deposited by the OP No.1 does not fully comply with the order passed by this Forum and upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, It has been averred that the OPs were directed to take back the washing machine from the complainant at their own cost, but the OP never visited to the house of the complainant to take back the washing machine. Another application has been moved by complainant praying therein that the amount deposited by the OP be released.

4.         Admittedly, a sum of Rs.11,000/- has been deposited by OP No.1 in compliance of the order dated 31.1.2012. From the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by this Forum, it is apparent that OPs were given following directions:-

“(a)      Pay Rs.12,500/- towards the cost of washing machine, as well as take back the defective washing machine from the complainant on their own expenses;

(b)       Rs.5,000/- as compensation;

(c)       Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.17,500/- till it is paid, apart from the cost of litigation.”

5.         This order was upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, vide its order dated 7.8.2012. Thus, the order passed by this Forum and upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, has not been completely complied with.

6.         Even the OP No.1 in its application has prayed that a sum of Rs.11,000/- be released in favour of complainant. Same prayer has been made by the complainant in the application moved by it. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs.11,000/- deposited by OP No.1 be released in favour of complainant alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any.

7.         The complainant, if so desire, may move an application for execution petition regarding the remaining amount.

8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  After compliance file be consigned. 

            Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                          Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)       (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)           (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT                                MEMBER

01.10.2012