Bhausaheb Devram Patil vs Kishore D. Patel

NONE appears for the parties. Despite this, we decide to dispose of this revision petition on merits, as, in our view, the order dated 10.9.1998 passed by the State Commission, Maharashtra, in Revision Petition No. 44 of 1998 is totally unjustified. It appears that in revision petition which arose out of the execution proceedings (M.P. No. 28 of 1996) the State Commission reversed the final decision rendered by the District Forum.

FACTS, in brief are that the complainant, Mr. Bhausaheb Devram Patil has filed complaint, No. S. R. 92 of 1993, against Kishore D. Patil, alleging deficiency in service on his part in supplying the defective colour television. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.9.1994 directed the opposite party to repair the T.V. set or refund its price. As the order was not complied, the complainant filed an Execution Petition, M.P. No. 28 of 1996, before the District Forum. In that execution petition the District Forum by order dated 20.8.1998 sentenced the opposite party to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay penalty of Rs. 5,000. Against that order which was passed in the execution petition, the opposite party filed revision petition, i.e. Revision Petition No. 44 of 1998, before the State Commission. The State Commission reversed the original judgment passed by the District Forum in S. R. No. 92/93 and arrived at the conclusion that there exists no relationship of consumer and service provider between the petitioner and the respondent.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has come in revision before us.

IN our view, the order passed by the State Commission allowing the revision by holding that there exists no relation of consumer and vendor between the parties, is, on the face of it, without jurisdiction. IN execution petition this is not open to the State Commission to reverse the order of the District Forum which has already become final. Moreover, in this case, it is found from the record that the opposite party did not care to appear before the District Forum for a number of times; and, the opposite party had lost the opportunity of approaching the State Commission by filing the appeal. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.9.1998 passed by the State Commission in R.P. No. 44 of 1998 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

HOWEVER, considering the fact that the Revision Petition was filed in the year 1999, we direct the District Forum to give a chance to the opposite party (respondent) to comply with the order passed by the District Forum in S.R. No. 92 of 1993 by serving necessary notice on him. If the respondent fails to comply with the same, despite the notice and time being given, the District Forum would implement the order dated 20.8.1998 passed by it in M.P. No. 28 of 1996. The Registrar is directed to communicate copies of this order to both the parties as well as to the District Forum. Revision Petition disposed of.