DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> EA.No.37 of 24.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 02.12.2009<br /> <br /> Gurlal Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, resident of V.P.O., Bharwangarh, Distt. Bathinda.<br /> …….Applicant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> J.L. Ahuja, Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Bank Bazar, Bathinda & Another.<br /> ……Opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite party that complainant filed CC.No.67 dated 13.02.2003, which was decided on 21.11.2003. The complainant moved an appeal, before the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh vide FAO No. 1717/2003, which was finally decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 27.05.2009. The Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh accepted the appeal, and ordered to the opposite party No.1, to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% P.A. w.e.f. 21.01.2002 alongwith cost of litigation of Rs. 500/-. The copy of order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, was received, and thereafter, the complainant sent a registered letter dated 26.08.2009 to the opposite party, but opposite party did not listen to his request to comply the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, and therefore, he has to move the present complaint, for enforcement of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh. He has also sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-, for filing the present application.<br /> 2. Opposite party contested the application, and he filed reply raising objections that the complaint is not maintainable under Section 27 of the ‘Act’, as the complainant has to exhaust his remedy u/s 25 of the C.P. Act, before filing the complaint under Section 27 of the ‘Act’. He has also pleaded that he has complied with the order dated 27.05.2009, passed by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, and has paid an amount of Rs. 15,598/- vide Cheque dated 06.10.2009, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bathinda as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant, and nothing remains due. He has also pleaded that opposite party applied for certified copy of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh on 03.09.2009, and the same was received on 09.09.2009, and thereafter the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh was examined, and Regional Office of opposite party at Chandigarh finally decided not to file further appeal against the orders to this effect, received by opposite party on 01.10.2009, and thereafter, the draft was prepared for payment due to the complainant, and it was paid in the Forum itself.<br /> 3. Complainant in order to prove his allegations, filed his own affidavit dated 24.09.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of Order dated 27.05.09 Ex.C-2; copy of letter dated 26.08.09 Ex.C-3; copy of postal receipt Ex.C-4; copy of payment receipt Ex.C-5, and copy of legal fee bill Ex.C-6.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. J.L. Ahuja, D.M. dated 18.11.09 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of Office notes and orders Ex.R-2; copy of letter dated 27.09.09 Ex.R-3, and copy of Order dated 27.05.09 Ex.R-4.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 6. It appears from the record that the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, heard the arguments in the appeal on 26.05.2009, and the orders were reserved, and thereafter the copies of the order were prepared on 16.07.2009, and thereafter the same was sent to the opposite party. The perusal of the order Ex.C-2 reveals that no time was fixed for its complying, and thereafter, it appears that the opposite party had complied the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, within a period of approximate two months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, though there appears to be some delay in complying with order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh. However, having regard to the fact that opposite party has complied with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh. Therefore, no punitive action is calledl for, and the complaint stands disposed of.<br /> 7. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost, and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 02.12.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br />