ORDER NO. 3 DT. 20.1.11

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

OP No. 1 is present through Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate and he along with Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of OP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 files Vokalatnama and also BNA.  Revisionist is absent on calls.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Ops.  Judgement is passed as under :-

This Revisional Application is directed against the order dt. 1.7.10 passed by the Purba Medinipur Executing Forum in Execution Case No. EX/07/2009.  The Complaint case was disposed of by directing the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to place the vehicle in question being WB 30D-1890 before the Regional Transport Officer of Regional Transport Authority, District-Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for the purpose of issuing fitness certificate for the aforesaid vehicle on examination and thereafter to deliver the vehicle to the complainant.  The said order having been put into execution the Ops/JDr along with the necessary Fit Certificate issued by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector brought the said vehicle before the Executing Court for delivery to the complainant on 16.3.10.  The Executing Court upon perusal of all the documents was satisfied about its correctness and directed the Complainant/DHr to receive the vehicle in question under proper receipt.  The Execution Case was thus recorded as disposed of on 16.03.10 in full and final settlement of the Complaint case.  In spite of such direction the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle in question.  On the contrary, he made an application dt. 7.4.10 for further direction upon the Ops/JDr to issue fresh Fit Certificate and for making arrangements for delivery of the vehicle to the Complainant/DHr.  The said application was disposed of by merely observing that the Complainant/DHr would take delivery of the vehicle in question from the office of the Ops/JDr under proper receipt.  In this state of affairs the complainant filed a further application dt. 18.6.10 for review of the said order dt. 7.4.10 made on the aforesaid application of the Complainant/DHr.  By the impugned order the said application dt. 18.6.10 has been rejected. 

The facts and circumstances reveal that on 16.3.10 the Ops/JDr complied with all the terms of the order of disposal of the complaint case and produced all necessary documents relating to the vehicle in question along with the Fit Certificate issued by the concerned MVI and further brought the vehicle before the Executing Court for delivery  to the Complainant/DHr.  The Executing Court being satisfied about the correctness and validity of the aforesaid documents directed the Complainant/DHr to take delivery of the same.  Unfortunately the Complainant/DHr did not take delivery of the vehicle in question on the said date at his own peril.  After the Execution Case was recorded as satisfied upon full and final settlement of the award as awarded in the complaint case, the complainant cannot be entitled to re-open the same case for his own lacuna and laches. 

For the reasons as aforesaid and also upon consideration of the order dt. 7.1.10 as passed by the Executing Forum below we are also of the view that the latter application dt. 18.6.10 is not at all maintainable for review of the order dt. 7.4.10 as well as for re-opening of the Execution Case.  The Revisional Application is accordingly dismissed.