RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.122 of 1997

Harbans Singh s/o Late Sri Harnam Singh,

R/o 2.97, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow.                                                       ...Revisionist.

Versus

M/s Woodland, 23, Chandra Lok Colony,

Aliganj, Lucknow through its proprietor,

Sri Sanjay Sinha s/o Sri R.N. Sinha            .…Opp. Party.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.

None appeared.

Date        11.2.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.1997, passed by the Ld. DCDRF-I, Lucknow in Execution Case No.168 of 1994, the Revisionist Jai Harbans Singh s/o Late Sri Harnam Singh has preferred the instant appeal under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Forum below is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law and, therefore, it has been prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Forum below be set aside otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the complaint case no.134 of 1993 Harbans Singh vs. M/s

(2)

Woodland  was decided on 28.1.1994 and the OP M/s Woodland was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.11,075.00. A copy of the judgment was sent to the OP by means of registered post on 31.1.1994 which was served upon it on 5.2.1994. However, M/s Woodland failed to comply with the order and consequently, Execution Case no.138 of 1994 was filed against it for satisfaction of the decree. During the course of hearing the D.H./Revisionist moved an application for referring the matter to Civil Court for execution. The Forum below, after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record rejected the application with the observation that proceedings under Section 27 of the Act was drawn on the prayer of the revisionist/D.H. The Forum was competent enough to get the decree passed by it satisfied and, therefore, there was no need to refer the same to Civil Court for execution. The Forum below (Executing Court) further observed that that the OP Sanjay Sinha has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months in addition to a fine of Rs.3,000.00. A warrant of arrest had also been issued against him on 23.10.1997 and appropriate steps have been taken for execution of the order. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the prayer for referring the matter to the Civil Court was rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the instant revision has been filed. We have given due consideration on the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record. The Forum below had invoked the power conferred under Section 27 of the Act and had sentenced to J.D. to an imprisonment for a period

(3)

of three months in addition to a   fine of Rs.3,000.00 and accordingly, warrant of arrest was issued against him on 23.10.1997 and, therefore, there was no reason for referring the matter to Civil Court afresh for execution. The J.D. Sanjay Sinha s/o Sri R.N. Sinha has not preferred any revision against the order of conviction and, therefore, we refrain to express any opinion in this regard. The instant revision being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

 The revision, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Jugul Kishor)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.4