BHIMAPPA BALAPPA HATTIHOLI Vs. SUTARIA AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challange is to the Order dated 30.5.2006 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing the revision filed against the Order of District Forum whereby execution application filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.

(2.) Only few facts need be noticed for deciding the present revision. Petitioner filed a complaint against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., opposite party No. 1 and Sutaria Automobiles, opposite party No.2/respondent which was partly allowed by the District Forum by the Order dated 26.3.1997 with direction to both the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay to the petitioner amount of Rs. 2,57,048.00 with interest, Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards miscellaneous expenses on returning the jeep in question. Dissatisfied with District Forum's Order the opposite party No. 1 filed appeal No. 260/97 while opposite party No. 2 Appeal No. 268/97. Both these appeals were dismissed by a common order dated 9.4.2001 by the State Commission. Against State Commission's order, opposite party No. 1 filed R.P. No. 1025/01 while opposite party No. 2, R.P. No. 786/02. R.P. No. 786/2002 was dismissed as barred by time. R.P. No. 1025/2001 was allowed setting aside the orders passed by both the Fora below and dismissing the complaint by the order dated 6.4.2004 by this Commission. Against the order passed in R.P. No. 1025/01, petitioner filed SLP which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.10.2005. Thereafter, petitioner filed execution application seeking execution of the said orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission against the respondent/opposite party No. 2 which was dismissed by the District Forum and revision against District Forum's order was also dismissed by the State Commission by the order under challenge.

(3.) Short submission advanced by Mrs. Kiran Suri for petitioner is that the order dated 26.3.1997 of the District Forum as affirmed in appeal was for payment of awarded amount jointly and severally and after dismissal of said R.P. No. 786/2002 the respondent/opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay the awarded amount. Submission is, however, without any merit. Aforesaid order dated 6.4.2004 allowing R.P. No. 1025/01 filed by opposite party No. 1 would show that the said orders of the District Forum and State Commission were set aside in toto and complaint dismissed in entirety and not qua opposite party No. 1 only. District Forum had, therefore, rightly dismissed the execution application and State Commission the revision. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. R.P. dismissed.