TARUN MONDAL Vs. MRITYUNJOY MOHANTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 28. 12. 2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata dismissing revision against the order dated 2. 2. 2006 of a District Forum. The District Forum had directed the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 to pay the price of machine with interest @ 10% p. a.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant, on contest by the petitioner, was allowed by the District Forum by the order dated 30. 11. 2004 with direction to the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 who was ex parte, to repair the machine and its parts to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 1 within 15 days and in case the repair was not possible, then to replace the machine and its part or to pay the amount received by petitioner along with interest @ 10% p. a. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal/revision against this order. It, thus, attained finality. It seems that respondent No. 1 filed execution application some-time in January, 2005 and in those proceedings the petitioner filed applications dated 24. 2. 2005 and 17. 5. 2005 and thereafter, aforesaid order dated 2. 2. 2006 came to be passed by the District Forum. Based on the applications dated 24. 2. 2005 and 17. 5. 2005, the submission advanced by Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy for petitioner is that the petitioner was willing and ready and is still prepared to repair the machine and its parts and District Forum, therefore, ought not to have passed the order for payment of the amount received along with 10% interest by the petitioner. In the application dated 24. 2. 2005, prayer made was that respondent No. 1 be directed to bring the machine along with parts to the Service Centre of petitioner at Village Nischintapur, Dumka Road. In the application dated 17. 5. 2005, prayer made was that the petitioner be exempted from the liability to repair the machine or pass any such order as the District Forum may deem fit. In the body of application, petitioner has shown his willingness to repair the machine and its part. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that pursuant to aforesaid order dated 30. 11. 2004 the petitioner was to carry out repairs of the machine and its parts within 15 days. It is not the case of the petitioner that before filing of said two applications he had approached respondent No. 1 for carrying out repairs of the machine and parts within 15 days as per the direction dated 30. 11. 2004. That order does not say that the machine and its parts were to be taken by respondent No. 1 to the Service Centre of the petitioner at Village Nischintapur, Dumka Road. That being so, the repairs were to be carried out at the place of respondent No. 1. Aforesaid application dated 17. 5. 2005 would show that the petitioner somehow wanted to wriggle out of the order dated 30. 11. 2004. In this backdrop, we do not find any merit in the submission referred to above and any illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order of District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any substance. Revision Petition dismissed.