Respondents had deposited a sum of Rs.3 Lacs with the petitioner on 24.07.2002 which was to be returned after one year along with interst @ 12% p.a. Respondent being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum which was allowed on 20.08.2009. Order of the District Forum attained finality. Respondent filed execution application under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was dismissed by the District Forum by observing that the respondent could not proceed against the Secretary and the President of the Society, aggrieved against which respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission has reversed the order of District Forum. -2- Instead of filing revision petition before this Commission petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to file revision petition before this Commission. Revision petition has been filed with a delay of 158 days. On 18.11.2011 delay of 158 days in filing the revision petition was condoned as the delay had occurred because the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the High Court. Case was adjourned for today at the request of counsel for the petitioner to study the point as to whether the amount could be recovered from the President and Secretary of the Society and produce the relevant case law on that regard. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission allowed the appeal by observing thus: 7. When we go through the complaint, it is filed against the said society represented by its President and the Secretary. They have not disputed their status and liability. E.P is also filed against the said society represented by its President and Secretary and as could be seen the definition of a person under Section 2(m) it includes the Co-operative Society as a person. The DHr., has every right to proceed against the society represented by its President and the Secretary. Society itself cannot comply the said orders, it is only the representative of the society -3- who are bound to comply the said orders and they are none other than the President and Secretary. 8. Even in this appeal the Secretary appeared but never objected to the fact of initiation of the E.P and having proceeded against the President and the Secretary. Only the prayer of OP/JDr, is that they want some time to repay the said amount whatever the amount they have received was given to the other members as a loan. Unfortunately, they become the defaulters and society is not in a position to recover the said amount. So the entire amount of the society is struck that’s why they seek some installments. Except this defence there is no other counter defence raised by the OP/JDr. When that is so, we find the order under appeal is rather unjust. Rejection of the prayer of the DHr., to proceed against the President and the Secretary appears to be improper. 9. On the perusal of the records, OP has already paid nearly about Rs.1,00,000/- and they want some time to repay the remaining amount and they have also prayed for the installments. The said plea was raised in the original complaint also. When the prayer of the OP/JDr., is already rejected with respect to providing the benefit of installments, now the same prayer cannot be agitated in the appeal. The basic order cannot be amended or modified or varied in the proceedings under Section 27 of the C.P. Act. While executing the said decree or award the executing Court cannot go behind the scope of the award -4- and the decree. Under the circumstances, we find OP/JDr., is not entitled for the installments as prayed.” Counsel for the petitioner does not contest the correctness of the order passed by the State Commission except that the State Commission in the absence of any allegations made against the President and Secretary the amount could not be recovered from the them. I do not find any merit in this submission. Once petitioner accepts correctness of the order, plea now raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained. | 
