AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In a consumer complaint filed by the respondent, the District Forum vide its order dated 11.03.2015, directed as under:
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost.
That the O.P. is directed to pay to the complainant due amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lac) with an interest of 9% per annum from 01.11.2013 till realization, within one month from the date of this order.
That the O.P. is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.90,000/- (Ninety Thousand) as compensation for repair cost for damped/damaged walls and door frames of complainant's flat, within one month from the date of this order.
That the O.P. is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony of the complainant, within one month from the date of this order.
That the O.P. is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as suit cost within one month from the date of this order.
That the O.P. is directed to hand over to the complainant copy of possession certificate, sanctioned building plan and completion/occupancy certificate within one month from the date of this order.
If any of the above executable orders is not complied with within the stated period, then the judgment debtor shall have to pay an additional amount of Rs.100/- (One Hundred) per day as Punitive Damage, from the expiry of stated period, to be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. A revision petition was thereafter, preferred by the petitioner before this Commission which also was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 17.03.2017.
The execution proceedings having been initiated by the complainant against the petitioner, the State Commission issued Warrants of Attachment vide order dated 27.06.2017. The aforesaid order of the District Forum was questioned by the petitioner before the State Commission. In the aforesaid appeal, MA/746/17 was filed by the petitioner seeking waiver of penalty, interest and compensation etc. which the District Forum had awarded in the consumer complaint. That M.A. having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
It is not in dispute that the order passed by the District Forum in the consumer complaint on 11.03.2015 attained finality, on account of the Appeal, Revision Petition and Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed. Therefore, the penalty imposed and compensation awarded by the District Forum in the consumer complaint vide its order dated 11.03.2015, is no more open to question. The directions given by the District Forum in the consumer complaint cannot be questioned in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner must necessarily comply with all the directions which the District Forum had given vide its order dated 11.03.2015, the said order having become final and binding upon the parties. The revision petition therefore, has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a sentence appearing in the order of this Commission dated 17.03.2017 in RP/283/2016 whereby it is recorded that the quantification of the compensation and the cost of litigation could not be said to be fair or reasonable. There is an obvious typographical error in the aforesaid sentence since 'fair' has been typed in place of 'unfair' and 'reasonable' has been typed in place of 'unreasonable'. It is evident that by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, this Commission had upheld the compensation as well as the cost of litigation awarded against him. Therefore, it could never have been the intention to term the aforesaid award as unfair and unreasonable. The complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of a typographical error in the order of this Commission dated 17.03.2017 particularly when he did not prefer any review application seeking recall of the aforesaid order and even the Special Leave Petition filed by him against the order of this Commission was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.
It is made clear that this Commission has not gone into the question as to what extent the order passed by the District Forum on 11.03.2015 has been complied. It is for the District Forum to decide as to what extent the said order still remains to be complied and it is for the petitioner to comply with the order to the extent it has already not been complied. The fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.