Haryana

StateCommission

RP/45/2015

Col. R.P. Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiv Kumar Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  45 of 2015

Date of Institution       : 03.06.2015

Date of Decision         : 14.10.2015

 

Col. R.P. Singh, 767, Transport Company ASC (Jeep), C/o 56, APO, now presently SSO, Station Head Quarters, Old Airfield, Srinagar, (Somgarh) M.S. Pin-900253, C/o 56 APO

                                      Petitioner-Complainant-DH

Versus

1.      Shiv Kumar Sharma now deceased, represented by Prince Kumar Sharma s/o late Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Resident of House No.958, Sector-7, Panchkula, District Panchkula.

          Second Address:

          Prince Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of Cargo Carrier India, Plot No.6, Transport Area, Sector-26, Chandigarh.

2.      Anil Kumar Bhasin, Pashupati Nath Transport Office, No.S 163, Transport Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

          Second Address:

          House No.134/135, Shahi Plaza Building, 3^rd Floor, Sneh Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow-2260005.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                         

Present:               Mrs. Veena Bhutani, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Desh Bandhu-authorised representative for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 given up.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition has been preferred by the Complainant-Decree Holder, against the order dated February 20^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula.

2.      The petitioner-complainant sought disbursement of Rs.45,857/- which was deposited by the respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor during the pendency of the execution application in order to comply with the order under award, by filing application No.10 of 2014.

3.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum dismissed the application observing as under:-

“As per report of the concerned assistant notice was issued to the Ops on the fresh address filed by the counsel for the complainant through registered post and the same has been received back unserved notice of O.P. No.2 on the IInd address has not been received back served or unserved. After perusal of the file it has come to the notice that complainant had already filed an execution application No.25 of 2013 and the same has already been dismissed by this Forum on dt.7.5.2014 due to non appearance of the complainant. Thereafter counsel for the complainant has filed an Civil Misc. application before this Forum. However, complainant had neither filed any revision petition before the Hon’ble State Commission against the order dt.7.5.2014 passed by this Forum and nor filed any fresh execution application. The order of this Forum dt.7.5.2014 stands final. The complainant has no right to file the present application. Hence the present execution application is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.”

4.      The District Forum fell in error in dismissing the application. The execution application can be any number of times till order is fully satisfied. Hence, revision petition is allowed.  The amount deposited by the respondent/J.D. be disbursed to the petitioner-complainant in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 14.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL