Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 25.1.2010 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand, Dehradun allowing appeal and setting aside the order dated 5.4.2003 of a District Forum passed in execution petition No.14 of 2001 as also the consequential proceedings pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow.

2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. OP No.45 of 1998 was allowed by the District Forum, Chamoli by the order dated 6.5.2000 with direction to respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 opposite parties to install a new engine in the jeep in question within a period of three months failing which respondent No.1/opposite party No.2 has to pay amounts of Rs.2,70,081 and Rs. 5,000 with interest @ 10% p.a. to the petitioner/complainant. To execute order dated 6.5.2000 the petitioner filed execution petition No.15 of 2000. Respondents alleged that the engine had been replaced and to verify this assertion District Forum called for a report from the senior foreman of regional workshop of U.P. Roadways, Dehradun. In his report dated 21.7.2001, the senior foreman stated that on inspection the engine was found to have been replaced a new engine. After road test the petitioner took delivery of the jeep. Execution petition was, therefore, struck off as satisfied by the order dated 24.7.2001 by the District Forum. Based on office letter dated 11.9.2001 of the Asstt. Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Rishikesh, the petitioner filed second execution petition No.14 of 2001 before the District Forum and by the order dated 5.4.2003 the District Forum ordered recovery of the awarded amount as per the order dated 6.5.2000 and issue of transfer certificate. This order led to the filing of execution petition No. 5 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow. In appeal filed by respondent No.1 against the order dated 5.4.2003 the State Commission held that the second execution petition is not legally maintainable and it is this order which is under challenge in this revision.

3. Inviting attention to the communication dated 3.5.2001 sent by Jai Prakash Dhodiyal of Friends Automobiles, Karnprayag to the President of the District Forum, Chamoli (copy at pages 67 & 68) and the office letter dated 11.9.2001 (copy at pages 76 and 77), the submission advanced by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for the petitioner is that respondents had not replaced the engine pursuant to the order dated 6.5.2000 nor prior to alleged replacement of engine, approval was taken by the respondents from the Asstt. Regional Transport Office, Rishikesh and Asstt. Regional Transport Officer has returned the jeep without granting fitness certificate and registration. The District Forum was thus fully justified in directing the recovery of the awarded amount in execution. However, the submission is without any merit. Petitioner knew of the said communication dated 3.5.01 even before the order dated 24.7.01 was passed dismissing execution petition No.15 of 2000 as satisfied still on receipt of report dated 21.7.01 of the senior Foreman after road test he had taken delivery of the jeep. Petitioner is now estopped from re-opening that issue based on the office letter dated 11.9.01. In case the petitioner felt aggrieved of the order of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer returning the jeep without issuing fitness certificate and registration, the remedy open to him was to challenge the order before the appropriate Court/Authority and not by filing execution petition No.14 of 2001. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Revision dismissed.

*******