AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COUNSEL for parties present.Arguments heard.Shri Ram Krishan Gupta father of Shri Rajiv Kumar Gupta, the complainant, is present.Mr. Aakarshan Sahay, counsel for respondent no. 3 and 4, is also present.
THE State Commission vide its order dated 03.02.2011, gave the following directions: "5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. As per the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the engine has not been replaced though promised and the engine is still given trouble. Since the assembly of the engine was changed as already stated and admitted in satisfaction voucher dated 5 February, 2010, it was found in order in all respect. th However, since the appellant is compliance of defect in the engine, we deem it fit to direct the respondent no. 1 to look into the vehicle once again to remove all defects within a month from today."
THEREAFTER , the matter went to the Execution Court.The Executing Court, thereafter, vide its order dated 22.07.2011, passed the following order: "Applicant with Shri Sain, Advocate present. Respondent No. 1 and 4 through Ms. Rajput, Advocate. Applicant appeared and filed application for receiving the amount deposited in the case. The respondent no. 1 and 4 vide order sheet dated 5.7.11 had deposited cheque No. 398685/4.7.11 of Rs.39,631/ - and cheque No. 398686/4.7.11 of Rs.1000/ - thus total Rs.39,631 which were deposited in the Account of the Forum and both the amounts have been cleared/credited on 9.7.11 in the account of the Forum. As such, on the identification of applicant Rajiv Gupta by his counsel Shri Mahender Kumar Sain, the account payee cheque No. 044895 dated 23.7.11 of Rs.39,631/ - is being issued to him. Copy of cheque be kept in the file. The applicant submitted that the entire amount in the case has been received and now he does not want to pursue the case. As such, the Execution Case is closed to the entire satisfaction of the applicant. The case file be consigned to the record room."
It is also clear that the order passed by the State Commission on 03.02.2011 was complied with and the petitioner was issued satisfaction voucher.
SHRI Ram Krishan Gupta submits that the vehicle has not yet been repaired and no compensation has been given.As per the statement made by Shri Mahnder Singh Sain, the counsel for the decree holder, the decree stands satisfied.The decree holder/the complainant cannot take the contrary view at this stage.The matter stands satisfied.Therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.