State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Bellard Engineers Pvt. Ltd., vs Niranjana Murthy, on 18 January, 2022
1
Revision Petition No.131/2018
ORDER
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition is filed U/s.17(1)(b) of CPA 1986 to set aside the order dtd.28.05.2018 passed in EA/56/2017 on the file of District Forum, Tumakuru and to close EA/56/2007 as per memo dtd.20.02.2018 and to direct Complainant/Dhr to refund Rs.30,000/- paid on 25.05.2017 since he has played a fraud against Petitioners as well as attempted to take undue advantage of order passed in original proceedings by suppressing the true facts.
2. The Commission examined the impugned order and the grounds of revision. It is found from the revision papers that Complainant Mr.Niranjana Murthy raised consumer complaint before District Forum, Tumakuru U/s.12 of CPA 1986 with following relief:
1. Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. (which was received by OP.1 & 2)
2. Rs.1,26,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. (received by OP.4 towards loan account) 2 Revision Petition No.131/2018
3. Rs.7,68,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. towards loss and damages caused to the Complainant from 26.11.2014 to 14.12.2015.
4. Rs.1,00,000/- towards incidental charges spent by the Complainant from 25.11.2014 till 03.11.2015.
5. Rs.10,000/- towards legal notice and further incidental charges till the decision of the Complainant
6. In all OP.1 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.11,24,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. to the Complainant.
3. The District Forum held an enquiry and dispose of the complaint on 20.10.2016 directing OP.1 & 2 to get the permanent RC to the Complainant's vehicle/TATA Motors ACE- Dicor commercial vehicle from the RTO office, Tumakuru with 30 days from the date of this order, further directed to the Complainant will cooperate with OP.1 and 2 to get the permanent RC from the RTO office, Tumakuru and directed OP.1 & 2 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages/compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of this order. Accordingly, Complainant/Dhr filed EP/56/2017 and application U/s.200 of Cr.PC seeking to implement the order, which came to be enquired by the District 3 Revision Petition No.131/2018 Forum and on 28.05.2018 dismissed the memo filed by OP.1/Jdr.1 fixing the date for recording plea on 05.06.2018, which is now in this Revision Petition contending that order is contrary to the facts and law, is liable to be set aside and EP has to be closed. In this aspect, if we examine the copy of complaint, could see Complainant raised consumer complaint with the reliefs stated supra not only against OP.1 & 2 but also against OP.3 & 4. However, District Forum dismissed the complaint against OP.3 & 4. It is to be noted herein that OP.3 & 4 are financiers from whom the Complainant has availed loan to purchase the vehicle from OP.1 & 2 was not rightly perceived by forum to implement its order. It has come in the enquiry file that OP.1 in his statement of objections at para 5 stated as 'Complainant has approached OP.1 & 2 requesting to sell Tata Ace vehicle. Accordingly he chose to purchase silver coloured Tata Ace vehicle which was of Sept 2014. The priceof the vehicle including tax after deducting concession was Rs.3,62,436/-. It is a fact that he has booked the vehicle by paying initial amount of Rs.80,000/- and he paid Rs.3,22,024/- through loan from Tata Motor Finance. The OPs agreed to get temporary 4 Revision Petition No.131/2018 registration and also arranged to get the vehicle insured through AIG general insurance co. ltd. by arranging to pay Rs.22,152/-.' Further in para 7 stated that 'OPs have agreed to bear the expenses of registration charges as per the repeated request and demand of the Complainant and accordingly returned Rs.14,259/- to him vide cheque of SBI and said cheque was got en-cashed by the Complainant.' Further could see that OP.3 & 4 have submitted their case in their version at para 10 to 13 that the District Forum dismissed the complaint against them and continued to held an enquiry against OP.1 & 2 who are before the Commission in this revision, since acts of OP.1 & 2 is not grounds to maintain complaint against them. They are not responsible for the negligence of OP.1 & 2. But the facts remain that, this vehicle was seized by them for not paying EMIs by the Complainant, was not at all examined by the District Forum. The legal effect of this would play a vital importance. The District Forum could have thought of legal consequences as to how the directions issued pursuant to award in CC/143/2015 could be implemented, since the very vehicle purchased by the Complainant was subsequently seized 5 Revision Petition No.131/2018 by OP.3 & 4 and as on the date of impugned order passed in EA/56/2017 the vehicle came to be registered in the name of Julekha Khadir as per annexure 8. This annexure 8 is none other the B-Register Extract issued by department of RTA which has relevance before the order could be implemented. When this Julekha Khadir is not a party to the proceedings and when the complaint came to be dismissed against OP.3 & 4, as rightly contended by the counsel for Revision Petitioners that order passed in CC/143/2015 could not be implemented and this vital legal aspect was not at all examined before fixing the date for recording for plea pursuant to enquiry held U/s.200 of CrPC by the forum below.
4. It has come in the enquiry that Jdr.1 has filed a memo before executing Forum, which was not at all considered. No doubt it is true that the executing Forum cannot go behind the award, it does not mean to say even an un-executable award or decree could be executable for any reason. In our view the executing forum empower to decide whether award under execution could be legally executable or not, during the course of execution proceedings, with this observation the impugned order passed 6 Revision Petition No.131/2018 by the District Forum in EA/56/2017 dtd.28.05.2018 are to be held contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside with a directions to District Forum to re-consider the memo dtd.20.02.2018 and E-Register extract issued in the name of Julekha Khadir and dispose of the EA in accordance with law as early as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
5. Provide copy of this order to both the parties and to the Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*