Punjab

StateCommission

FA/464/2014

Amritsar Improvement Trust - Complainant(s)

Versus

kanwar Rajinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.)

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.464 of 2014

 

                                                Date of Institution: 21.04.2014

                                                Date of Decision:  19.11.2015

 

Amritsar Improvement Trust having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Chairman/Executive Officer

 

                                                                    …Appellant/Opposite Party      

             Versus

 

Kanwar Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Ghansham Singh, r/o Kanwar Public School, Katra Moti Ram, I/s Hathi Gate, Amritsar

 

                                                                   ..Respondent /Complainant

                                                           

 

First Appeal against order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri. H.S. Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                   : Sh. B.S Taunque, Advocate

          For the respondent                : Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh,  Advocate

                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (JD in the execution proceedings) has filed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal being the DH Kanwar Rajinder Singh (the complainant now respondent in the appeal), challenging order dated 02.01.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amrtisar. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the JD now appellant.

2.      The short facts giving rise to filing the appeal by the JD now appellant are that the Consumer Forum Amritsar passed the order in favour of DH on 07.03.2011 directing the JD/appellant to provide basic amenities i.e. water supply, moterable road, sewerage in the scheme of plot within six months from the date of order and further not to levy any penalty on the complainant for non-construction, as per sanctioned site plan without providing basic amenities. The complainant earlier filed another execution against JD for enforcing the order of the District Forum Amritsar dated 07.03.2011. On considering the matter, the executing forum of District Forum passed the order in Execution No.129 of 2011 instituted on 09.09.2011 decided on 29.08.2011 between the parties imposing the fine of Rs.7,000/- under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act on JD and to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- to DH/Complainant out of the same. Even the direction dated 29.08.2011 passed by the District Forum while executing the order remained unimplemented by the JDs. On hearing the parties and their respective pleas on the record, the District Forum, Amritsar passed the order dated 02.01.2014 holding that JD is guilty for non compliance of the order of the District Forum Amritsar and imposed the fine of Rs.10,000/- on JD/Amritsar Improvement Trust, out of which the amount of Rs.7500/- would be paid to complainant/DH and amount of Rs.2500/- would be deposited in the Legal Aid Account. This order has been challenged by JD now appellant before us, which arose out of execution application filed by the complainant under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.      We have heard submissions of counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Sh. B.S.Taunque Advocate placed on record some photographs. The same is not part of the record nor they can be attached much significance. Even they do not establish the identity of the property, where these amenities were to be provided. We cannot get much benefit from these photographs on the record, although they were not part of evidence before the District Forum below. We find that the order passed by the District Forum on 07.03.2011 in Complaint No. 945 of 2010, instituted on 25.08.2010 remained unimplemented. The District Forum imposed fine for non-implementation of the order on JD, vide order dated 29.08.2012 in Execution No.129 of 2011 instituted on 09.09.2011. The non-compliance of the order of District Forum is contumacious and persistent on the part of JD. Sh. B.S Taunque counsel for JD now appellant tried to submit before us that some encroachments were made, which were required to be removed. Enough time has been given after passing the order of the District Forum, but they remained unable to implement the order of the District Forum. If order passed by the competent Forum of law go in waste then what is purpose of those orders. The orders meant forthwith compliance on the part of the concerned authorities. If authorities are openly defying the orders, then who is expected to obey the order of competent Forums? We hold after hearing submissions of both the sides, as well as grounds of appeal duly considered by us, that there is no valid excuse on the part of JD now appellant for not implementing the order of the District Forum. We observe that it is contumacious conduct of not to comply with the order of the Forum by JD now appellant which necessitated passing the orders by the competent Forums of law.  We do not find any merit in the appeal calling for any interference in the order of the District Forum. The litigants cannot be expected to move from pillar to post despite passing the valid orders in their favour by the competent Forums of law. No ground is made out nor established before us in the appeal to interfere with the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case dated 02.01.2014.       

4.      As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant/JD to complainant/DH before District Forum Amritsar.

 5.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

6.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                           (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S.GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

November 19,  2015                                                           

(ravi)