SURENDRA M. KHANDHAR vs DR. PANNABEN P. BHATIA & ORS.

The petitioner, Mr. Surendra M. Khandhar filed this revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.7.2015 of State Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in first appeal No. 374 of 2015.

The relevant facts to dispose of this revision petition are that the original complainants/respondents filed complaints No. 149 of 2003 and 56 of 2005 before the District Forum, Nandurbar. The said complaints were decided ex parte on 28.3.2005 and 12.8.2005. The petitioner/OP challenged the order of District Forum by way of an appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, OP filed revision petition, which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 7.2.2011. The special leave petition against the order of this Commission was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. During the pendency of revision petition, as per interim order of this Commission dated 24.11.2010, the OP deposited Rs. 6,45,468/-. This Commission vide order dated 7.2.2011, while dismissing the revision petition, observed as under : "the petitioner had deposited the entire decretal amount with upto date interest in this Commission. Accordingly, we direct that the amount deposited in both the revisions shall be remitted to the District Forum to be paid to the complainants towards satisfaction of the award passed in complaint case No. 149 of 2003 and in complaint case No. 56 of 2003. If any balance still remains, the complainant shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law."

The complainants in the year 2013, filed an application No. 5 of 2012 before the District Forum for recovery of balance amount of Rs.1,42,754/-. The OPs resisted the said execution petition contending inter alia that they have already paid an excess amount of Rs.15,308/- to the complainant and are entitled to refund of the same.

The District Forum held that the complainants are not entitled to claim any more amount as opponents have already complied with the order passed in both the consumer complaints on 28.1.2005 and 12.8.2005, consequently, dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants filed first appeal No. 374 of 2013 before the State Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the OP to pay, jointly and severally, to the complainant, balance amount of Rs.94,638/- instead of Rs.1,42,754/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the execution petition i.e. 12.3.2012, within one month and further Rs.5,000/- towards the costs.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, the petitioner/OP filed this revision petition.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the complainant, Dr. Pannaben Bhatia, in person. Perused the observations made by the State Commission. The State Commission recalculated the amount, which was claimed by the complainants in the original complaints and concluded that the complainants would be entitled to get total amount of Rs.7,40,106/-, out which, it is an undisputed fact that complainants have received Rs.6,45,468/- from the opposite parties. Therefore, the balance amount due for recovery from the opposite parties would be Rs.94,638/- and not Rs.142,754/- as stated by the complainant.

In view of the above, I do not find any error apparent in the calculations made by State Commission. The OP is liable to pay Rs.94,538/- to the complainant. Thus, I do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision petition has no merit. Hence, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.