STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. | : | 18 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.06.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 03.07.2013 |
HARNESS OVERSEAS MARKETING (P) LTD., SCO No.381, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Sh. Jasbir Singh Kajal, Manager Accounts.
…..Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
Versus
- VIVEK HIGH SCHOOL, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman.
- SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA, President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Chandigarh. (Name of Respondent No.2 deleted vide order dated 28.06.2013).
....Respondents.
Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. I. S. Ratta, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 22.05.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in Execution Application No.07 of 2013, vide which, it issued certificate under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act), to the District Collector, U.T., Chandigarh, for recovering the outstanding amount, from the Opposite Party.
2. The facts, in brief, are that initially the complainant Vivek High School, filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No.53 of 2011, through its Chairman before the District Forum, alleging that despite paying a sum of Rs.7,91,400/- to the Opposite Parties for OHM Speakers supplied by it and installed in its premises, it was totally dissatisfied with the performance of the same and requested it (Opposite Party) to replace the said speakers or, in alternative, refund its price. The said complaint was accepted by the District Forum vide order dated 26.11.2012, directing the Opposite Party as under: -
“12. Keeping in view the foregoings, we allow a reasonable depreciation of 05% p.a. from the date of installation of equipment on the amount actually paid by the Complainant. Opposite Party has said that the amount agreed for refund without depreciation was Rs.5,85,637/-. This has not been denied by the Complainant. Hence, depreciation @5% p.a. on Rs.5,85,637/- on reducing balance be deducted by the Opposite Party from 1 Jan. 2010, till the date of this order. The remaining amount so arrived at be refunded by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The Complainant must return the equipment forthwith on receipt of payment.
13. This order shall be complied by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which Opposite Party will be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the determined amount, from the date of this order, till it is paid. Opposite Party will also pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation.”
3. Thereafter, when the order dated 26.11.2012, passed by the District Forum, was not complied with by the Opposite Party, within the stipulated period, as directed by the District Forum, the complainant filed an Execution Application under Section 25 of the Act, for enforcement of the order dated 26.11.2012, in its letter and spirit.
4. The District Forum issued notice of the said Execution Application to the Opposite Party, on behalf of which, Sh. Tanvir Singh Ratta, Advocate put in appearance. On 03.05.2013, the Opposite Party handed over a Demand Draft bearing No.000344 dated 03.05.2013 of Rs.2 Lacs, in favour of the complainant (Vivek High School), to Sh. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant, in part compliance of the order dated 26.11.2012, under execution, and the case was posted for 20.05.2013, for compliance of the remaining part of the order. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 22.05.2013, on the request of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, on which date, the impugned order dated 22.5.2013, was passed by the District Forum.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.05.2013, passed by the District Forum, the instant Revision-Petition, has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
6. The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, submitted that vide the order dated 26.11.2012, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the Revision Petitioner to pay to it a sum of Rs.5,85,637/- alongwith cost of Rs.7,000/- (In fact refund of Rs.5,85,637/- was subject to depreciation @5% per annum on Rs.5,85,637/- on reducing balance from 1.1.2010 till 26.11.2012) with a corresponding direction to the respondent/complainant to restore to the petitioner the musical instruments, subject matter of the dispute. It was further submitted that the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, offered to pay the amount by way of draft(s) subject to the respondent/complainant restituting the said musical instruments in proper condition, inspection of which was to entail 10-20 minutes. It was further submitted that instead of allowing the inspection of the said musical instruments and accepting the sum ordered alongwith due interest and costs, the respondent/complainant preferred to file an Execution Application No.07 of 2012 before the District Forum. It was further submitted that during the course of execution proceedings, held on 3.5.2013, the Revision Petitioner tendered a draft of Rs.2 Lacs and requested the District Forum to direct the respondent/complainant to allow the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, an inspection of the musical instruments, prior to the payment of the remaining amount ordered and the respondent/complainant had undertaken to bring the musical instruments in the premises of the Forum on the next date of hearing viz. 20.5.2013. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant did not bring the musical instrument on 20.5.2013 and the matter was adjourned to 22.5.2013. It was further submitted that on 22.5.2013, the respondent/complainant brought the musical instrument in a mini truck and parked the same at the parking place in the premises of the Consumer Fora and the Revision Petitioner had brought along a Demand Draft dated 20.5.2013 for Rs.3,30,047/-. It was further submitted that the President of the District Forum, on its own, declined the request to allow inspection and, at that stage, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, made a request to take the draft of Rs.3,30,047/- on record and then pass appropriate order noting down all the happenings/events before it, interalia, request of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party for inspection, refusal on the part of the Counsel for the respondent/complainant to allow inspection and presence of Engineer of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party. It was further submitted that vide order dated 26.11.2012 of the District Forum, the full price of the musical instruments was ordered to be refunded, and, therefore, it was imperative on the part of the complainant to return the musical instruments in the same shape in which those were sold.
7. To determine, as to whether the District Forum committed any illegality or material irregularity, in passing the impugned order dated 22.05.2013, it is important to minutely go through the orders dated 20.05.2013 and 22.05.2013, which are reproduced hereunder:-
Order dated 20.5.2013.
“At the request of Counsel for OP, the case is adjourned to 22.05.2013 for compliance of remaining part of the order.”
Order dated 22.5.2013.
“The order has not been complied with by the OP. So, it is directed that a certificate under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, be sent to the concerned District Collector, along with copy of the orders dated 26.11.2012 and 13.02.2013 passed by this Forum, authorizing him to recover the outstanding amount from OP.
Now, for awaiting the report of the District Collector, to come up on 10.07.2013.”
8. No doubt, the submission of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, that he tendered a draft of Rs.2 Lacs on 3.5.2013 is correct. Thus, this was only in part compliance of the District Forum order dated 26.11.2012. As regards his submission that he was ready to tender a demand draft dated 20.5.2013 for Rs.3,30,047/-, the same did not find mention in the order dated 20.5.2013 of the District Forum when the case was adjourned to 22.5.2013 for compliance of remaining part of the order, and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The fact of bringing demand draft of Rs.3,30,047/-, was not brought, on record, of the District Forum file, by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, by moving a separate application, which clearly establishes that the aforesaid contention of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, is devoid of truth.
9. Now, coming to the next submission of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, that the full price of the musical instruments was ordered to be refunded by the District Forum vide order dated 26.11.2012, and, therefore, it was imperative on the part of the complainant to return the musical instruments in the same shape in which those were sold, it is important to have a look at the directions given by the District Forum in the operative part of its order dated 26.11.2012, which reads as under: -
“12. Keeping in view the foregoings, we allow a reasonable depreciation of 05% p.a. from the date of installation of equipment on the amount actually paid by the Complainant. Opposite Party has said that the amount agreed for refund without depreciation was Rs.5,85,637/-. This has not been denied by the Complainant. Hence, depreciation @5% p.a. on Rs.5,85,637/- on reducing balance be deducted by the Opposite Party from 1 Jan. 2010, till the date of this order. The remaining amount so arrived at be refunded by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The Complainant must return the equipment forthwith on receipt of payment.
13. This order shall be complied by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which Opposite Party will be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the determined amount, from the date of this order, till it is paid. Opposite Party will also pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation.”
10. From the bare perusal of the order dated 26.11.2012, the operative part whereof, is reproduced above, it is very clear that the respondent/complainant was to return the equipment forthwith on receipt of payment but there was neither any condition that the said musical instruments, were to be returned in the same shape in which those were sold, nor there was any stipulation in the order aforesaid that the equipment to be returned, was subject to inspection in the presence of an Engineer or Representative of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, before the District Forum. The pleas of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, are completely bereft of facts, on record, as also against the contents of the orders dated 20.05.2013 and 22.05.2013 of the District Forum, already reproduced above, and, the same being devoid of force, are unsustainable, in the eye of law..
11. The District Forum, was very much within its jurisdiction, to issue a Certificate under Section 25(3) of the Act, to the concerned District Collector, to recover the remaining awarded amount, as arrears of land revenue, vide order dated 22.5.2013, as the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, failed to comply with the remaining part of the order dated 26.11.2012, under execution, in its letter and spirit. In this view of the matter, there was no illegality or material irregularity, on the part of the District Forum, in passing the impugned order dated 22.5.2013.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner.
13. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we find no force in the Revision Petition. The order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality and perversity or jurisdictional error, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, is upheld.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The record of the District Forum be returned alongwith a certified copy of the order.
16. The Revision-Petition file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
3rd July, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(Revision Petition No.18 of 2013)
Argued by: Sh. I. S. Ratta, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
Dated the 3rd day of July, 2013
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this Revision Petition has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
