State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms Schindler India Pvt Ltd vs Asha Mansinghka on 9 November, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Revision Petition No. 107 of 2017 Date of Institution: 09.11.2017 Date of Decision: 09.11.2017 Schindler India Private Limited, having its Registered Office at: 401/402, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Also At: 04th Floor, Plot No.44, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Petitioner-Judgment Debtor-Opposite Party Versus Asha Mansinghka wife of Shri Surender Kumar Mansinghka, resident of Khasra No.1829 (013) Mauza Nehar Par, New Indra Complex, Mawai Road, Faridabad, Haryana. Respondent-Decree Holder-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. Present: Shri Ajay Goyal, counsel for the petitioner. O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) By filing this revision petition, order dated 12th October, 2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short 'District Forum') has been challenged. The impugned order is reproduced as under:
"DH made a statement that she do not want to file reply of application dated 07.08.2017 filed by JD for issuance of necessary orders against the Decree Holder on account of creating hindrance and nuisance in the execution of the order/judgment dated 18.12.2015 and order dated 22.05.2017.
Case called several time since morning but none has appeared on behalf of JD. It is already 3:00 P.M. Further wait is not justified. Hence, bailable warrant of JD be issued in the sum of Rs.2000/- with one surety in the like amount for 01.12.2017."
2. Complaint No.23 of 2013 titled "Asha Mansinghka Versus M/s. Schindler India Private Limited" was allowed by District Forum vide order dated 18th December, 2015. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:
"Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to make the elevator in question operational free of costs within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite party shall hand over the elevator in question to the complainant on her clearance of payment of total contract amount of Rs.7,20,000/-. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of mental tension and agony as well as Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant."
3. Asha Mansinghka-complainant filed execution application before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 22nd May, 2017 passed the following order:
"In view of the statement of the counsel for JD, the execution petition is adjourned to 11.07.2017 for compliance."
4. On 11th July, 2017, the District Forum passed the order, which is reproduced as under:
"In view of statement dated 22.05.2017 one Satosh Kumar, Sr. Engineer of JD inspected the lift in question, the report is attached herewith. Today statement of counsel for JD is recorded. In view of the statement, the execution petition is adjourned to 07.08.2017 for compliance."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that despite best efforts made by the petitioner, the complainant did not allow to rectify the defects. The petitioner is still ready to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. On 12th October, 2017, counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the District Forum because his wife was hospitalized as per the Certificate (Annexure-1). He has further urged that an application has been filed before the District Forum that Local Commissioner be appointed, so, that the defects in the lift/elevator could be removed and the said application is fixed for 01st December, 2017. In view of above, it appears that the petitioner is ready to comply with the order dated 18th December, 2015 of the District Forum. In view of this, order under challenge, whereby bailable warrant against petitioner-JD is issued is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum on 01st December, 2017 and thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in accordance with law.
6. This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.
Announced 09.11.2017 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (Nawab Singh) President D.R.