BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

E.A. No. 85/2011 Filed on 30/11/2011

in

O.P. No.60/2002

Dated: 16..08..2012 Decree Holder/

Complainant:

Sobhakumar, Sobhanavilasom Bungalow, Perumthottamkinattuvila, Mulluvila: P.O., Neyyattinkara.

(By Adv. K.N. Justin)

Judgment Debtor/

Opposite party:

The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Transport Bhavan, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.V. Anoop)

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the Decree Holder to direct opposite party / judgement debtor to produce articles as stated in the petition. As per the order dated 26/07/2010 in Revision Petition No: 05/2010 of the Hon'ble State Commission this Forum is directed to verify the articles produced with the help of somebody conversant with the nature of the articles furnished by the Judgement Debtor, and if it is found that the articles are not the same, Forum has to direct the Judgment Debtor / KSRTC to make the payment as directed in the order in O.P. No: 60/2002. As per the order Decree Holder / Revision Petitioner is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- towards cost in the execution proceedings.

Judgement Debtor has filed objection stating that the materials found in the KSRTC bus were submitted before the Forum nearly 3 years back, that there was enough and more time to the Decree Holder to verify the materials with the help of the conversant with the nature of materials. Without doing so complainant accepted the entire materials. Further the Judgement Debtor has to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost to Decree Holder which was also pending.

It should be mentioned herein that complainant / DH had received the article furnished by the judgement debtor before the Forum. Judgement debtor had also paid Rs. 1,000/- as per the direction of the Hon'ble State Commission. Decree Holder has filed this petition to direct judgement debtor to produce the articles as stated in the petition. In this context, it should be mentioned that this Forum in its Order dated 15/12/2009 clearly stated "since the articles and its quantities were not separately identified at trial stage we cannot direct the Judgement debtor to produce the articles as visualised by the Decree holder". The said order was challenged by the Decree Holder before the Hon'ble State Commission by Revision petition 05/2010. As State Commission did not reverse the decision of this Forum; thereby the present petition has no basis at all. Complainant has never challenged the order in O.P. 60/2002 Execution Court is bound to enforce the said order. As Decree Holder had received the articles furnished by the Judgement debtor before this Forum and Judgement Debtor had paid Rs.1,000/- cost as ordered by the State Commission, the order in Revision petition 05/2010 is complied with, Execution Court cannot go behind the said order. In view of the above, the petition has no substance which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

Sd/-

BEENA KUMARI.A.,

MEMBER.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA

  MEMBER.