K K JETLY Vs. KAMAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, U. T. , Chandigarh in Complaint Case No.19 of 1999. The facts of the case may briefly be narrated as under :

(2.) The complainant purchased a second hand car from the respondents for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- on 14.3.1998 and paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was retained by the complainant which was to be paid on the delivery of No Objection Certificate and other relevant documents by the opposite parties to him so that the complainant was in a position to get the second hand car registered in his own name and have the registration certificate and other necessary documents for plying the car. Since the opposite parties failed to provide the No Objection Certificate and other documents the complainant filed this complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No.19 of 1999 and the same has now been decided by order dated 7.7.2000. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and issued a direction to the opposite parties to get the vehicle transferred in the name of complainant and to hand over the relevant documents within a period of one month. The Forum also made it very clear that in case this direction is not complied with, the opposite parties would be liable to be punished under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The District Forum also allowed the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- which was retained by him to be kept as compensation for the delay and cost of litigation. Despite the fact that the District Forum granted the appropriate relief to the complainant, the complainant has filed this appeal. In this appeal it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum should have directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid as the price for the second hand car which has been purchased by the appellant and which is still in his possession. In this view of the matter when the appellant is having the physical possession of the car purchased by him the Forum could not have possibly and legally issued a direction for the return of the price of the car. The Forum has already considered and granted the relief to the complainant by issuing the directions to the opposite parties which has been enumerated above. We find no infirmity in the order of District Forum - II. We are of the considered view that the complainant should have gone to the District Forum for getting the order implemented under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Even now the complainant can, if so advised, approach the District Forum and have the order dated 7.7.2000 implemented under Sec.25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the case may be. So far as this appeal is concerned there is no merit in it and the same is dismissed. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges.