Punjab

Ludhiana

EA/16/10

Surinder Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Mankoo Machine Tool - Opp.Party(s)

Mashkoor Alam adv

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Execution Application No:10 dated 01.02.2016                          

                         Date of decision: 20.04.2023  

 

Sri Surendernath B Sadare (since deceased) through his Lr.Suhas Sadare s/o Surendernath Sadare Prop. of M/s Sujay Metal Pressings, D-81, Industrial Estate, Gokul Road, Hubli-580030, Karnataka.

                                                                             Decree holder/complainant.

                                                Versus

1.M/s Mankoo Machine Tool Pvt. Ltd. 678, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana-141003 (Punjab) India through its Managing Director/Director.

2.Managing Director/Director of M/s Mankoo Machine Tool Pvt. Ltd. 678, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana-141003 (Punjab), India. 

Judgment Debtors/Opposite parties

Execution Application under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For decree holder/complainant                   :         Sh.Mashkoor Alam, Advocate

For judgment debtors/opposite parties       :         Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The decree holder/complainant Sri Surendernath B Sadare(now deceased) represented through his legal heir namely Mr.Suhas Sadare, has filed the present execution application under the Consumer Protection Act whereby he sought the enforcement of order dated 16.12.2010 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Commission in Complaint No.409 of 25.05.2010. As per the execution application, the complainant had filed a complaint No.409 of 25.05.2010 before this Commission and the same was decided on 16.12.2010. Aggrieved by the orders of this Hon’ble Commission, both the parties had filed appeals before the Hon’ble State Commission vide appeals No.First Appeal No.450 of 2011 filed by decree holder/complainant and First Appeal No.110 of 2011 filed by JDs/OPs. The appeal of decree holder/complainant was allowed and the appeal of JDs/OPs was dismissed vide common order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission. By accepting the appeal of decree holder/complainant, following directions were issued to the OPs:-

i)to replace both the machines as under:-

One power press 20 Ton capacity, “C” Type Frame, Steel Fabricated Body, Stress Relieved, with mechanical clutch but with electrical & motor.

Power press 50 Ton Capacity, “C” Type frame, steel fabricated body, stress relieved, with mechanical clutch but with electrical & motor.

i.e. as per the order placed by the complainant with the OPs/JDs. In case the Ops does not have these machines as per the specifications stated above, then he should refund a sum of Rs.4,01,700/- along with interest @12% from the date of deposit till payment;

ii)Pay Rs.1 lacs as compensation and iii) Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

Further, as per the execution application, the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by JDs/appellant at the time of filing of appeal no.110 of 2011 with the Hon’ble State Commission, has already been disbursed to the decree holder on his request. However, the remaining part of the award dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission has not been complied with by the JDs/OPs till date. Hence the present execution application.

2.                Reply to the execution application not filed by the JDs/OPs. However, they filed the application on 06.06.2016 for directing the complainant to deliver the machinery in question for its replacement in view of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission by stating therein that the JDs/OPs were ready to replace these machines with the machines as per the specifications of the complainant.

3.                In reply to the said application, decree holder/complainant has simply opposed the maintainability of the application on the ground that the same has been filed just to misuse of the process of law the same has been filed after the filing of the execution and after a long time i.e. 6 years. It is submitted that the JDs/OPs have never approached to the complainant with regard to comply with the order dated 16.12.2010 till the filing of the present application.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on file very carefully.

5.                Perusal of the order dated 16.12.2010 passed in CC No.409 of 2010 by the Learned Processor of this Commission shows that while allowing the aforesaid complaint, the following observations were made:-

“Therefore, in such scenario, we allow the complaint and directed OP to deliver electric motor of 20 ton new machine to the complainant and for supplying defective ton machine, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-(five thousand). Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of this order, which be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.”

6.                Feeling aggrieved with the observations made in the said order, both the parties filed the First Appeal Nos.450 of 2011 and 110 of 2011 by approaching the Hon’ble State Commission and the said appeals were decided by the Hon’ble State Commission vide its common order dated 25.08.2014 whereby appeal filed by the JDs/OPs was dismissed whereas, appeal filed by the decree holder/complainant was accepted the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by this Commission was modified with the following observations:-

“i)to replace both the machines as under:-

* One power press 20 Ton Capacity, “C” Type Frame, Steel Fabricated Body, Stress Relieved, with mechanical clutch but with electrical & motor.

* Power press 50 Ton Capacity, “C” Type frame, steel fabricated body, stress relieved, with mechanical clutch but with electrical & motor.

i.e. as per the order placed by the complainant with the OPs/JDs. In case the Ops does not have these machines as per the specifications stated above, then he should refund a sum of Rs.4,01,700/- along with interest @12% from the date of deposit till payment;

ii)Pay Rs.1 lacs as compensation and

iii) Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.”

7.                It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present execution application, decree holder Sri Surendernath B Sadare was expired and his legal heirs were impleaded vide order dated 09.11.2022.

8.                Further, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present execution application, certain payments were made by the JDs to the counsel for the decree holder on different dates i.e. Rs.20,000/- on 28.11.2017, Rs.20,000/- on 15.01.2018, Rs.10,000/- on 19.03.2018, Rs.6000/- on 15.10.2018, Rs.10,000/- on 10.12.2018 and Rs.8000/- on 10.01.2019. Further, it is admitted by the decree holder/complainant that he had already received Rs.25,000/- as deposited by the JDs/OPs before the Hon’ble State Commission.  

9.                The controversy between the parties remains as to whether the compliance of the order fully complied with by the JDs or not. During the course of arguments, counsel for the JDs has stated at bar that the JDs are still ready to replace the machines in question with new one but the decree holder has not brought the old machines for replacement. However, counsel for the decree holder has stated at bar that the machines are lying at Kerala. Since there are specific directions by the Hon’ble State Commission for replacement of the machines in question or in the alternative to refund the cost price of the same along with interest.

10.              In the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M.Chinnamuthu(Dead) versus Kamaleshan @Shanmugam (Dead) through legal heirs-2022 LiveLaw(SC)209 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).2198/22 decided on 18.02.2022, it has been observed that in a civil litigation, the judgment-creditor is entitled to enjoy the fruit of the litigation within a reasonable time. In our justice delivery system, the real litigation starts only after the decree is passed and the judgment-creditor has to wait for number of years for enjoying the fruit of the decree and the litigation. If such a delayed tactics is permitted, the litigant would lose the confidence in the justice delivery system. Every litigation has to put to an end at a particular time. Further, it has been observed that the Executing Court is directed to finally decide and dispose of the execution proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order. All concerned are directed to cooperate with the learned Executing Court to finally decide and dispose of the execution proceedings at the earliest and within the time as stated herein above.

11.              Since the JDs have substantially comply with the order under execution by refunding the amount of compensation and litigation costs on different dates which have been duly received by the counsel for the decree holder. Only the order qua replacement of the machines in question could not be executed due to lethargic approach of the JDs. Replacement of the machines in question practically involves exchange of old machines with new machines and order under execution expects pro-active approach of the decree holder to produce the old machines at the business premises of the JDs and then thereafter it is the JDs who legally bound to discharge their obligations expeditiously and within the time frame for the said purpose. So in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be sub-served if another chance is afforded to the parties hereto, so that the order under execution can be complied with in the letter and spirit. So, it will be in the fitness of things that if the decree holder is directed to supply the old machines to the JDs within 30 days against proper receipt and thereafter, JDs are directed to replace the machines within 30 days after receiving the old machines from the decree holder as per directions passed by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 25.08.2014 or in case, the OPs does not have these machines as per the specifications made in the order dated 25.08.2014, then JDs should refund a sum of Rs.4,01,700/- along with interest @12% from the date of deposit till payment. As such, the present execution application stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. However, decree holder will be at liberty to file fresh execution application, in case any amount of compensation is due towards the JDs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

12.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)             (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.04.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma