Today was fixed for proper orders for the judicious dispensation of the present execution in the light of the repeated adjournments intermittently sought by both the sides causing unnecessarily delays in delivery of (fruits of) justice to the litigants. The present execution was filed on 12.11.2014 by the D.H. (Decree Holder) applicant to enforce compliance of the Forum’s orders dated 27.08.2014 adjudicating the consumer complaint # 345 of 2013. The presence of the J.D. (Judgment Debtor) respondent could only be enforced on 16.06.2015 (and that also, through NBW) when he expressed his willingness to comply the Forum’s orders provided the DH complainant executes his part in compliance by delivering the remaining parts of the AC unit (machine) in question. To award creditability to his intended/exhibited intention to comply (the forum’s orders), the JD respondent did produce originals & placed on records copies of 2 nos. of compliance Cheques on 13.07.2015; since the DH applicant stayed ‘absent’ so the case was adjourned in the interest of justice. On 30.07.2015, the JD respondent filed an application praying directives to the DH applicant to return the remaining ‘balance’ AC Unit parts to him so that he could affect compliance of the forum’s orders through delivery of the 2 nos. of ‘compliance cheques’ to him. Awaiting, amidst various adjournments, the DH’s reply to this JD application of 30.07.2015; the forum was advised on 21.10.2015 of a probable ‘compromise’ being attempted between the litigants. Somehow, the attempted compromise could not materialize as stated to the Forum on 18.11.2015. However, the presence of the JD respondent could only be procured on 26.02.2016 when the DH applicant filed yet another application seeking delivery/custody of the original compliance cheques with no mention of ‘return’ of the remaining ‘balance’ parts of the AC Unit in question nor the reply to the JD’s application of 30.07.2015 on the subject of ‘return’ of ‘balance’ parts; who however, has duly filed his reply on 09.03.2016 (to the DH’s application of 26.02.2016). We have also heard (in totality) the learned counsels for both the sides on 09.03.2016 in order to adjudicate the JD’s application of 30.07.2015 along with the DH’s application of 26.02.2016 & that shall itself autobiographically determine the main execution.

2.       The learned counsel for the JD respondent has pleaded that his client has been ready from the day-1 to ensure compliance of the forum’s orders but the DH applicant be also directed to comply his part of the orders by delivering back the balance ‘held-up’ parts of the AC Unit (namely: Indoor unit, Indoor unit Stand, Stabilizer, Remote bar and Pipe etc). The JD counsel did also refer to the cheques drawn on 26.06.2015, representing full compliance with interest up to that date (copies duly produced on 13.07.2015) that however could not be delivered to the DH on account of his ‘unauthorized’ absence and ‘non-delivery’ of ‘balance parts’ of the AC unit in question. Lastly, the counsel repeatedly offered delivery of the cheques in the above stated fashion.

3.       In turn, the counsel for the DH applicant has vehemently argued that the Forum’s orders do not contain the ‘return-delivery’ of the ‘specified’ AC parts and the ‘executing-court’ has no jurisdictional authority to go behind the basic order in proceedings U/s 27 of the Act. The learned counsel has also quoted the honorable NCDRC orders in RP # 1022 & 1023 of 1996 titled: M/s Rajindra Properties & Industries vs. Shri R.S. Nandwani & Ors; duly propagating the legal proposition that ‘basic orders cannot be amended in execution’. The DH counsel finally prays for necessary directives to the JD to deliver ‘compensation cheques’ to DH or else ‘penal’ orders be passes against him as per the provisions of section 27 of the Act.

4.       We have critically examined the Forum’s orders dated 27.08.2014 measured against the ‘points of facts’ of the related consumer complaint # 345/2013  in the light of the present proceedings and applicable ‘law in question’ on the subject matter to find out that the consumer ‘dispute’ pertained to the outer AC unit only and that was removed for ‘repairs’ (with the inner unit & others left back there, only) but the present DH complainant wanted the same to be completely replaced and did not permit the repaired outer unit to be installed, thus the inner unit along with the some other parts remained with the DH complainant whereas the outer unit was retained with the JD vendor. The Forum’s orders under compliance nowhere mention that the left-out AC parts shall be retained back by the DH complainant and still the JD respondent shall refund the full cost of the AC in full.

5.       The DH applicant’s such like interpretation of the Forum’s orders is bereft of legal ‘logic’ and need be discarded. We are also to respectfully state that the cited orders of the honorable NCDRC being case specific do not exactly apply to the present execution. In the cited judgment the point raised in execution-appeal pertained to the quantum of awarded interest that amounted to ‘alteration’ aspect of the awarded rate of interest; whereas in the present execution ‘issue in question’ pertains to simple ‘interpretation’ of the ‘award’ and that shall surely go by the orders of the executing court with of course under the remedy of appeal U/s 27A of the Act.     

6.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present execution shall be best disposed of by directing the present JD respondent to deposit the duly validated (good for payment) 2 nos. of ‘compensation cheques’ (as were drawn on 26.6.2015) i.e. Rs.23986/- + Rs.30000/- = Rs.53986/-with the forum’s office Superintendent within 10 days of receipt of the copy of these orders and in turn the DH applicant shall collect the same from the forum’s office superintendent within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders by depositing the valid Receipt duly obtained from the JD respondent by delivering back to him the balance AC parts/items namely: Indoor unit, Indoor unit Stand, Stabilizer, Remote bar and Pipe etc. The parties here shall bear their own costs here and shall also actively assist each other in advancement of their de’facto common mutual interest.

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                                           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                                 President.                                                                                         

ANNOUNCED:                                                                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

MARCH, 15, 2016                                                                        Member.

*YP*