MADAN MOHAN GUPTA Vs. NARESH MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 01.04.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his petition for execution of order dated 14.05.2077, passed in his favour and against the respondent has been disposed of in the following terms: - ''In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the execution application is disposed of accordingly. The applicant is directed to return the defective parts of the rolling machine, as mentioned in Annexure C -1 within one month as of today, and thereafter, the respondent will make the payment of the defective parts, as assessed in Annexure C -1, within ten days from the date of receipt of the defective parts. The applicant is also held entitled for interest on the assessed amount as mentioned in Annexure C -1, at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of passing of the order in main consumer complaint i.e. 14.05.2007, till its realization, in case the price of the defective parts is not paid, as stipulated above. ''

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be stated. Appellant had purchased some machinery from the respondent. It developed serious defects, which were not removed, despite complaints having been lodged by the appellant with the respondent. He then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Respondent was proceeded exparte. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the respondent to replace the defective parts within 30 days and if for any reasons beyond his control, it was not possible to replace the defective parts, to refund the amount equivalent to the price of the defective parts. Appeal was filed against that exparte order by the respondent, which came to be dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 2nd June, 2008.

(3.) RESPONDENT did not comply with the order within the time stipulated in the order of the learned District Forum, i.e. 30 days nor did he pay the price of the defective parts and, therefore, an execution petition was filed on 24.07.2008. Respondent filed a reply, in which it was stated that for some unavoidable reasons, order regarding replacement of the defective parts could not be complied with earlier and that he was ready to comply with the same, if permitted to do so by extending the time. Appellant stated that the time limit fixed in the order for replacement of the defective parts having expired, he was not interested in the replacement of the defective parts.