E.A. No. 28 of 2013

Mahabir Beej Bhandar             Vs    Ravinder Singh etc.     

Present:       None for the applicant.

                   Case called several times since morning.  It is now 3.45 p.m.  but none appeared on behalf of the applicant.

2.                This application has been filed by Mahabir Beej Bhandar under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for the enforcement of the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula.  According to the facts mentioned in this application, the complaint titled as Ravinder Vs. Mahabir Beej Bhandar etc. was allowed by this District Forum vide order dated 29.09.2008 and an execution was filed by the complainant for the execution of the said order of this District Forum.  In the execution a sum of Rs. 70,370/- was paid by the present applicant Mahabir Beej Bhandar to the complainant Ravinder Singh.  An appeal was also filed by Mahabir Beej Bhandar against the order dated 29.09.2008 of this District Forum.  Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula allowed the appeal of Mahabir Beej Bhandar vide order dated 28.02.2012 and dismissed the complaint.  Now the present application has been filed by Mahabir Beej Bhandar for the execution of the said order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula.  The operative part of the said order is reproduced below:-

For the reasons recorded above we feel that District Forum committed grave error in allowing the complaint.

Accordingly, appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside, complaint is dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification as per rules on the subject, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any, filed in this case.

                    No order has been passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula for the recovery of Rs. 70,370/- from the complainant Ravinder Singh in its order dated 28.02.2012.  Section 25 & Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act envisage that if order passed by the Consumer Fora are not complied with then appropriate orders can be passed by the District Forum under Section 25/27 of the Act.

3.                From the perusal of the operative part of the order dated 28.02.2012 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, we found that no such order has been passed for which the present application has been filed by the applicant.  In these circumstances, the application of the applicant is not maintainable.  The applicant shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse for the recovery of the amount as per the provisions of law, if so advised.  The applicant can take the benefit of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in view of the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court Laxmi Engg. Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute-II (1995) CPJ-I Supreme Court.  The application disposed of.  File be consigned to the record room.

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                                                                   20.10.2016. 

                   Member