Heard the learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The case of    the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant has filed a complaint  case bearing No.91 of 2005 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and that matter has been disposed of by the learned District Forum on 27.01.2007  and the OP have already complied the order as per the impugned order in para-4. But the crucial question arises only about  the observation  at para-5  of the impugned order. Perusal of para-5  is concerned impugned order  it appears that it is not part   of  the subject matter of the original  complaint case or the order of the complaint case which  can be decided by the executing  Court. He submitted that this order in para-5 & 6 is beyond   the scope  of the execution proceeding. Therefore, he submitted that the entire order should be set-aside.

4.                   Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if  the impugned order has been complied but when  there is further  for  non compliance, then Execution  U/S-27 of the C.P.Act,1986 lies. He further submitted that  the bill  has been a subject matter of the earlier proceeding and   then being imposed again, learned District Forum has rightly passed the order to waive out same.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “The Execution Case is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to waive out the penal bill. “

6.               Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order . Para-4,5 & 6 of the impugned order is as follows:-

              4.    “The opposite parties filed some documents Annexure-A to K which shows that they have conducted verification by the Electrical Inspector in presence of the petitioner. From the documents  it appears that they have verified the premises and complied the order. So, no action should be taken U/S-27 of the C.P.Act. “

                   5.  So, far the penal bill is concerned, the opp.parties are taking steps whether they will take further action to imposing any penal bill. When there is no justification to impose penal bill it should be waived  or a part of  it should be waived. In this connection, there is no necessity to take any legal advice. Considering the documents the department should have waived the penal bill.”

                   6.   “The Execution Case is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to waive out the penal bill. “

7.                   The para-4 of the District Forum has clearly  observed that the impugned order has been complied and no action U/S-27 A is warranted. Since,  there is  observation at para-4 by   the learned District  Forum about total compliance of previous order, the next observation at para 5 & 6  are actually otiose and irrelevant. We, therefore found there is merit in the appeal.

8.            So far maintainability of the appeal is concerned, no doubt in the appeal also the jurisdictional  aspect can be raised.  When there is option of the parties either filing revision or  the appeal, the filing of the appeal if so facto can not be said improper  and illegal.

                  In view of aforesaid discussion,  we find  the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.            

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                DFR be sent back forthwith.