State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mangaldas vs Ashok Jain on 13 June, 2019
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.328 / 2014.
Mangaldas s/o Shri Khumandas,
R/o Village Tiakri Pipari Thana,
Tehsil & Distt. Dindori (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Ashok Jain, Pro. Ashok Hardware Gandhi Chowk, Main Road Dindori, Tehsil & Distt. Dindori (M.P.).
2. B. Bidha Industries, Coimbatore - 641 004 (Tamil Nadu). .... RESPONDENTS.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
13.6.2019 Appellant is present in person.
Shri Kartikey Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindori (for short the "Forum") in Execution Case No.4/2013 whereby the Forum has closed the execution application filed by the appellant - complainant by directing the complainant to obtain 'his' pump from the respondent no.1, the appellant - complainant has filed this appeal.
- 2-
2. Briefly stated the appellant - complainant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") before the Forum stating therein that the submersible pump purchased by him from the respondent no.1 on 15.5.2011 had stopped working during the warranty period of one year and as such alleging deficiency in service he claimed compensation and prayed for providing him new pump.
3. During the pendency of the matter before the Forum the parties entered into compromise and the following compromise order was passed on 14.9.2012 in the said complaint case No.7/2012 :-
6- jkthukek ds vuqlkj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd %& ¼1½ ifjoknh dks vukosnd Øekad 1 ^^mUufr dEiuh dk lcef'kZcy iEi lsV^^ ,d ,p0ih0 dk rhu fnol esa iznk; djsxkA ¼2½ izdj.k dh mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] ifjokn ds U;k;ky;hu O;; ds ckcr~ vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mHk;i{k bl ifjokn dk U;k;ky;hu okn&O;; viuk&viuk ogu djax as As ¼3½ vfHkHkk"kd 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij fu;ekuqlkj :- 300&300@& vkadh tkosA mDrkuqlkj O;;rkfydk cukbZ tkosA
- 3-
4. When the aforesaid compromise order was not complied with by the respondent no.1, the appellant had filed Execution Case No.4/2013. The said execution case has been disposed of by the Forum by directing the complainant to receive "his"
pump from the Forum today itself. Following is the operative paragraph of the impugned order :
"vukosnd us ,d vkosnu izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k gS fd vukosnd ds fo:+) tkjh tekurh okjaV fujLr fd;k tkos A vukosnd }kjk izLrqr vkosnu U;k;fgr esa Lohdkj dj vukosnd ds fo:} tkjh tekurh okjaV fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ifjoknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og viuk iEi vkt gh bl Qksje ls izkIr djs]a vU;Fkk izkIr uk djus dh fLFkfr esa vukosnd dks okfil dj fn;k tkosxk A mDr fu"iknu izdj.k ds vkns'k dk ikyu gks tkus ls mDr fu"iknu izdj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A"
5. According to the appellant - complainant the respondent no.1 did not brought a new submersible pump but had brought the repaired pump of the appellant himself regarding which the complaint was filed. It is the case of the appellant - complainant that the word viuk (his) in the impugned order dated 27.1.2014 is addition
- 4- and insertion as the same is not in the original order dated dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Forum in Complaint Case No.7/2012.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has supported the impugned order.
7. We have gone through the consent order as extracted above. A plain reading of the said order means a direction to the respondent no.1 / opposite party to provide the complainant a submersible pump of 1 H.P. manufactured by Unnati Company within 3 days. The said compromise order nowhere speaks about "appellant's" pump to be returned to him.
8. Thus in our considered view the Forum has acted contrary to the settled legal position that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The compromise order has been misinterpreted by the Forum by adding the word viuk (his) in the impugned order. The said addition
- 5- of the word "viuk" leading to a totally different meaning to the relief which was not the relief granted by the Forum vide order dated 14.9.2012. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed in the execution case is beyond and contrary to the original order passed by the Forum in the complaint case.
9. As a result, the impugned order being ex- facie illegal and beyond jurisdiction the same deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to comply the order dated 14.9.2012 in its correct spirit by providing the appellant - complainant a submersible pump of 1 H.P. manufactured by Unnati Company. Let this be done within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellant is also held to be entitled for compensation of Rs.3,000/- in addition to Rs.1,000/- which has already been imposed by the Commission on the respondent no.1 as cost which has not yet been paid to the complainant. The said amount totalling to Rs.4,000/- be also paid by the respondent no.1 to the
- 6- complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the appellant will be entitled for interest @9% from the date of this order till payment.
10. With the aforesaid directions the appeal is allowed.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr.Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER