KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.79/2022
ORDER DATED: 05.12.2022
(Against the Order in E.A.No.16/2018 of DCDRC, Wayanad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR:
| Rahul Ganesh, Proprietor, Rohini Engineering Works, Front of Mariamman Temple Road, Calicut Road, Manikkuni, Sulthan Bathery P.O., Wayanad |
(by Adv. P. Rajmohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:
| P.P. Varghese, Panakkal House, Chomadi, Kariabadi P.O., Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad – 673 591 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
The Judgement Debtor who had filed E.A.No.16/2018 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (the District Commission for short) has filed this Revision Petition. As per the order under revision, the District Commission has dismissed the E.A.
2. The dispute in this case concerns a Coffee Bean Roaster Machine which was purchased by the Decree Holder/complainant. She had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service since the machine was not found to be working satisfactorily. The District Commission passed the final orders in the year 2012 directing the Revision Petitioner to either repair the machine within one month or to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs) as compensation. According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the original Judgment Debtor has passed away in the meantime. His wife as well as one of his sons also passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. Now the concern is being looked after by the younger son. It is stated that the machine has now been repaired and made trouble free. I.A.No.183/2022 was filed for an order seeking appointment of an Expert Commissioner to examine the machine and to file a report regarding its present condition. The petition has been dismissed. According to the learned counsel, the District Commission has termed the entire exercise to be a waste of time, which itself is unreasonable. He therefore seeks interference with the order of the District Commission.
3. Heard. We notice that, what is being executed in E.A.No.16/2018 is an order of the District Commission of the year 2012. Though the order had been directed to be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, nothing transpired. It is therefore that the Execution Proceedings were initiated. More than ten years have elapsed now. At this length of time, there is no justification for the Decree Holder to be burdened with an old machine that has allegedly been repaired and made into working condition by the Judgement Debtor. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the complainant is paid the value of the machine. She has been trying to execute the order of the District Commission for more than a decade now. Therefore, we find no error of jurisdiction in the order under revision.
This Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
Sd/- RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
Sd/- BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
Sd/- K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
