Sanjay Machinery And Tractor vs DEVENDRA

M /s. Sanjay Machinery and Tractor, Khandva (Madhya Pradesh) has filed this appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, against the order of MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 927 of 2009. The impugned order was passed in an Execution Appeal filed by the present appellant. The matter arose from a complaint pertaining to an allegedly defective vehicle purchased by the Complainant from OP -1/R.K. Motors, Gwalior. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum, West Nimar Mandleshwar, M.P. in its order of 25.4.2003. The operative part of the order read: "Hence, on the basis of above analysis this complaint of complainant stands partly accepted and order as per following is being passed :

(i) On deposit of old vehicle by applicant within one month from the date of receipt of order, non -applicants jointly and severally shall give new vehicle to applicant.

(ii) if vehicle is given by non -applicant Nos. 1 and 2 then they will be entitled to get new vehicle from manufacturing company non -applicant No. 3.

(iii) Non -applicants jointly and severally shall pay Rs. 10,000 to applicant for mental agony, deficiency in service and costs."

THIS order remained unchallenged by the three OPs. till an Execution Petition was filed before the District Forum. The petition was decided on 1.4.2009. The executing Court considered the fact that OP -3/Manufacturing Company had since stopped manufacturing of the vehicle in question. Therefore, it directed payment of Rs. 1.9 lakh to the complainant/decree holder, in lieu of replacement of the vehicle. The above order of 1.4.2009 was challenged by OP -2/M/s. Sanjay Machinery and Tractor, Khandva before the MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal was decided in the impugned order with the direction: "We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with the direction that the decree be executed against respondent No. 3 -Maestor Motors only in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and against appellant and respondent No. 2 in the ordinary manner. Since the appellant -Sanjay Machinery and Tractor has been fastened liability, it cannot disown the liability at this belated stage on the plea that he had no role to play in the sale of the vehicle in question."

We have carefully considered the records before us and heard Mr. Raju Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of the appellant/M/s. Sanjay Machinery and Tractor, Khandva. The prayer of the appellant is not only to set aside the impugned order of 16.7.2013, but also to call for the records of the main complaint itself.

THE main ground of challenge is that the respondent No. 1/complainant has, in the garb of the application for execution, got the order of 25.4.2003 reviewed and altered. However, learned Counsel for the appellant gracefully admitted in arguments before us that the order of the District Forum dated 25.4.2003 was not challenged by the present appellant. It had therefore acquired finality qua the appellant/Sanjay Machinery and Tractor. The order had held the OPs jointly and severally liable for replacing the vehicle supplied to the Complainant by a new vehicle. As clearly recorded in the impugned order, the order of the District Forum passed on 1.4.2009 in execution of the above order took note of the fact that the manufacturing company had stopped production of the vehicle. It was for this reason that payment of Rs. 1.9 lakh to the Complainant was ordered. Further as the manufacturing company/OP -3 had gone into liquidation, the impugned order clearly directed the decree should be executed against OP -3 in accordance with the provision of Companies Act. We, therefore, find no substance in the claim of the appellant that the main order itself has been changed in the garb of execution.

ANOTHER ground of appeal is that the appellant is neither the manufacturer nor the vendor of the vehicle sold to the Complainant. This evidently is not a matter arising out of execution proceedings. It is an attempt to reopen the issues in the complaint itself and the decision of the District Forum to hold all the three OPs, including the present appellant responsible jointly and severally. The order of 25.4.2003 from which the present execution appeal eventually arises, having admittedly acquired finality qua the three OPs, the question cannot be agitated at this stage. In the light of the above, we hold that the impugned order is based on correct appreciation of the material before the State Commission. We find no merit in the case of the appellant. Consequently, FA No. 684 of 2013 is dismissed. No costs.