Dt.10.06.2015

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

            The present appeal is directed against the Order No. 9 dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Execution Application No. EA/13/141 related to the complaint case No. CC/12/486.

        Order No.9 dated 14.08.2014 in the complaint case No. CC/12/486 is as follows :

      “Both parties are present .

        Dhr. himself filed an affidavit stating therein that his part of the order can not be complied by him since he has disposed  the material in question as a scrap.

        So, Dhr. is not in a position to comply his portion as has been mentioned in the operative part of the decree whereas Jdr has come in the Forum with the Bank Draft as per the order of the Decree to deliver the same to the Dhr.

        In view of the above, this Forum is not in a position to direct Jdr. to handover the Draft to the Dhr. since the Dhr.  fails to comply his part.

        In view of the above , the instant execution case is disposed of accordingly, and the affidavit filed by the Dhr. today forms the part of the order.”

        Being aggrieved by the order of the  Ld. Forum below, dated 14.08.2014 in the Execution Case No. 13/140, the Complainant / Appellant herein submits that though he was directed by the order of the Ld. Forum below dated 21.8.2013 in case No. 486 / 2012 ‘ to return the machine in question to OP within 7 days after compliance of the order’ of payment of compensation and costs , he was unable to produce the equipment as the same was disposed of.

        The Respondent , i.e., Sushanta Sengupta, appearing on behalf of the Jdr. submits that Ld. Forum has rightly observed that the Dhr./Complainant was unable to comply his part of the order of the Ld. Forum below as he had admittedly disposed of the machine as a scrap. He was ready to comply with the order of the Ld. Forum below, but the Dhr./ Complainant was in no position to return the unserviceable machine which would imply that his part of the order would never be complied with.

        Upon hearing of both parties and having perused the materials on record,we find  that the Jdr. was ready to handover the Bank Draft for compensation and costs as awarded by the Ld. Forum below, but, the Dhr. on his part was not in a position to return the purported unserviceable machine i.e., water purifier, which he bought from the OP Respondent and in respect of which a compliant petition demanding compensation and costs was filed on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the OP service provider, we are of the considered view that the failure on the part of the Dhr. to comply his part of the order being admitted in  clear terms , the order of the Ld. Forum below can not but be upheld. Hence,

                        Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest. The impugned order is confirmed . There shall be no order as to costs.