Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member; Mr. Jasbir Singh Gill; Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Members
M/S. LILAC MEDICARE (PVT.) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
DR. S.C. GARG S/O MR. M.R. GARG - Respondent
First Appeal No. 968 of 2015.
Decided on : 11-04-2016
Sh. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate, for the Respondent
Non-compliance with a court order can lead to the dismissal of an application seeking directions for compliance with the same order.
Headnote:
Section 27A - Appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - CC No. 291 dated 3.5.2011 - Order dated 17.9.2013 - Compliance of order - Application under Section 27 - Non-compliance with order - Dismissal of application
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 27A against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking directions to the respondent to comply with the order of the Hon'ble National Commission. The appellant failed to comply with the order to lift the machine within the stipulated period, leading to the dismissal of the application by the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum found that the appellant deliberately and intentionally did not comply with the order of the Hon'ble National Commission, leading to the dismissal of the application. The Court upheld the decision of the District Forum, stating that the order did not call for any interference.
Issues: Non-compliance with the order of the Hon'ble National Commission, application under Section 27, dismissal of the application
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellant's failure to comply with the order of the Hon'ble National Commission justified the dismissal of the application. It emphasized that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission and that the order is to be implemented as passed by the Hon'ble National Commission.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
ORDER
1. The appellant/Op (hereinafter referred as Op) has filed the present appeal under Section 27A against the order dated 27.4.2015 in Execution Application No. 27 dated 23.1.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) vide which the application filed by Op No. 2 against respondent/complainant Dr. S.C. Garg was dismissed.
2. The background of the case is that CC No. 291 dated 3.5.2011 was filed by complainant - Dr. S.C. Garg against Ops Sanjiv Kalia and M/s. Lilac Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and the said complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 21.11.2011 with the direction to Ops to make the machine purchased by the complainant from Ops functional or replace the same with new machine with same make and model without charging any further cost except the balance amount. In case they are unable to replace the machine, they shall be liable to make refund of the amount so paid by the complainant qua the machine in question within the stipulated period. Ops were further directed to pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
3. Appeal filed by Ops was dismissed by the State Commission, then Revision Petition No. 612 of 2013 was filed before the Hon'ble National Commission. Hon'ble National Commission vide its order dated 17.9.2013 condoned the delay period of 362 days subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- and on the basis of compromise between the parties, issued the directions as under:-
"...that the defective machine will be rectified by Op No. 2, who will lift the machine from the premises of respondent/complainant within three weeks and machine will be sent back, rectified, within one month thereafter or in case it has to be sent to USA, where the actual manufacturer resides, then, in that case within three months thereafter. It has been agreed that the rectified machine working properly, would be handed over to the complainant, within a period of three months and three weeks or in the alternative the entire amount paid towards the machinery would be paid back to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum......"
However, within the stipulated period, Op did not come forward to lift the machine from the premises of the complainant/respondent. Then Revision Petition Nos. 612 and 3209 of 2013 were filed by both the Ops. Then M.A. No. 740 of 2013 was filed by Ops in the Revision Petition No. 3209 of 2013 and it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that they have passed the consent decree vide their order dated 17.9.2013 and the District Forum is the Executing Court, therefore, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the District Forum - the Execution Court for compliance of the decree.
4. Then Op moved an application under Section 27 of the Act for passing directions to complainant Dr. S.C. Garg stating that in furtherance to the compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, they approached complainant on 8.10.2013 to hand deliver the copy of the letter dated 8.10.2013 vide which the applicant sought the complainant's cooperation for making necessary arrangements to enable the applicant to lift the machine on 10.10.2013. However, complainant refused to acknowledge the receipt of the letter dated 8.10.2013 and refused to permit the applicant to life the machine. On 10.10.2013 for the purpose of rectification, he wrote another letter dated 10.10.2013. Its reply was received on 26.10.2013 from the complainant that the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission has become redundant on account of breach on non compliance on the part of Op. However, there was no intention on the part of applicant/Op not to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, however, it was due to inadvertence that applicant failed to remit the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as awarded by the Hon'ble National Commission and he had moved an application before the Hon'ble National Commission giving un
