ORDER PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) 1. Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, the State Commission) in revision petition No.50 of 2010. The revision before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Jabalpur in Execution Case No.91 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly modified the order of the District Forum. Not contented with the same, the petitioner/complainant has filed these proceedings. 2. We have heard Mr. Praveen Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioner/complainant. The petition has been filed after a delay of 24 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the State Commission was not justified in taking the view it has taken because, according to the petitioner/complainant, the respondent has failed to comply both the directions given by the District Forum till date i.e. in regard to the repair of the bunk bed as also to hand over the receipt of the bed. According to him, the State Commission has wrongly recorded the factum of the respondent having filed the receipt along with the reply on 23rd of September, 2008, when the petitioner/complainant failed to accept the same when it was tendered to her. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the penalty/compensation of Rs.100/- per day, which was awarded by the District Forum on failure of the respondent to comply with the directions within the period of one month. 5. Whether the receipt was actually filed by the respondent along with his reply on 23rd of September, 2008 is a question of fact which has been decided by the fora below. Since the parties accepted the order passed by the District Forum and the said order has become final, it is only to be seen as to whether the directions given in the order of the District Forum have been complied with or not. In our view, this cannot be a subject matter of a revision petition before the National Commission because the challenge in those proceedings is restricted only to the illegality and jurisdictional error appearing in an order passed by the fora below. In our view, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if there is any mistake in the factual position as recorded by the fora below, it would be open for the petitioner/complainant to approach the District Forum once again with whatever grievance is left in regard to the non-compliance of the order of the District Forum. |
