Oral Order: (B.N. Rao Nalla, President)

This is an appeal filed by the Petitioner/complainant in P.P. assailing the order of the District Forum in P.P.No.20/2013 in C.C.No.123 of 2011.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

3. The District Forum passed an order in C.C.No.123 of 2011 dated 04.04.2012 directing 'the opposite party to return the Logon Car to the complainant in road-worthy condition after collecting the repairing and other charges of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant. In the circumstances no costs are awarded'.

4. Against the said order the complainant preferred appeal and the erstwhile State Commission while allowing the appeal in part modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.12,000/- and directed to issue necessary papers like change of the name in RC Book and insurance papers etc., and return Logon Car to the complainant in road worthy condition within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

5. As the respondent did not comply with the said order he filed the P.P. In the PP the complainant also filed petition seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify the problems of the vehicle with the assistance of Auto Mobile Engineer. The said petition was allowed and Advocate Commissioner after inspecting along with one show room technical coordinator Ramesh and AGM E.Vara Prasad gave the report as follows:

'We thoroughly observed after the test drive of the said vehicle. We have seen some problems i.e. Head Light damage, viper is not working, A/c direction knob not working, low pick-up, left side tyres pulling, gear box mounting replace, gear oil leakage, tyres condition are also not good, drive shaft oil leakage, no side view mirrors etc., the above said problems found with the said vehicle. The vehicle insurance is also not renewed. That the said vehicle is not good condition to run on the road'

6. The respondent/opposite party filed objections to the said report stating that the complaints relating to clutch plate, gear box, self-motor were all rectified and the opposite parties kept the RTA forms ready for change of the name of the vehicle in the name of the complainant and informed to the complainant to take delivery of car by paying the amount of Rs.12,000/-. But the complainant did not come forward to take delivery of the vehicle. The respondents/opposite parties also stated in their objections that the complainant did not point out in his original complaint the grievances with which the Commissioner filed report. Some of the works have been not stated in the complaint. These are all new grievances. As per the orders of the Forum and the erstwhile State Commission the vehicle was to be in running condition. The complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the vehicle by paying the amount. The insurance policy is to be provided by the owner of the vehicle but not by opposite parties and they cannot be made liable for insurance.

7. The District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances directed the opposite parties to attend to the wheel alignment, rectification of leakage of gear oil and drive shaft, fixing of A/c direction knob free of cost and also directed the petitioner to pay charges for the fixing of new wiper, fixing of head lights and side view mirrors and the said works have to be attended within two days by the opposite parties.

8. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The District Forum failed to see that the erstwhile State commission passed orders modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.12,000/- and directed to return the logon car in road worthy condition along with necessary papers like changing name in R.C.Book and Insurance papers etc. Based on the order, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.12,000/- to the opposite parties but they did not comply the order of the erstwhile State Commission. The Advocate Commissioner report clearly states that the vehicle is not in the road worthy condition and the problem of the vehicle is still persistent and also the vehicle insurance is not renewed by the opposite parties. The objections filed by the opposite parties creating confusion without any material. Therefore, the petitioner/complainant prayed set aside the order dated 12.07.2013 passed in P.P.No.20 of 2013 and allow the appeal and also prayed to direct the opposite parties to award Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner/complainant together with costs of Rs.30,000/-.

9. None appears. Written arguments of the appellant filed.

10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?

11. It is the allegation of the petitioner/complainant that as per the orders of the erstwhile State Commission in FA No.428 of 2012 dated 04.04.2012 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the opposite parties but they failed rectify the problems in the vehicle. Even the technician identified the problems in the vehicle like gear box, housing, suspension, AC, head light, poke lamp, battery and other damages which were brought to the notice of the opposite parties but they failed to rectify the same.

12. The opposite parties contended that they have made the vehicle ready in a road worthy condition and also issued various letters to the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle but the complainant did not come forward to take delivery of the vehicle.

13. It is pertinent to see that the complainant has purchased the old car of 2007 model which was used by its original owner for 3 years and sold to the complainant from the opposite parties. The complainant after the said purchase used the car for over six months and approached the opposite parties for some repairs to the car and denied to pay the repairing charges. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the older car for which no warranty will be given to the said car. If the car had any problems it is the complainant who has to pay the repairing charges to the opposite parties. In the complaint the complainant stated the problems of clutch plate, self motor, gear box etc. Whereas in the report of the Advocate Commissioner it was found that the head lights were damaged, the wiper was not working A/c direction mode was not working and also the vehicle has low pick up, the vehicle had left side pulling, gear box mounting has to be replaced, gear box oil leakage, tyres condition is bad, drive shaft oil leakage, review mirrors not present and that insurance is to be renewed. The above said complaints are all new which are not mentioned earlier in the complaint by the complainant. As per the directions of the erstwhile State Commission the vehicle was to be in running condition. We find the order passed by the District Forum is just and fair. It is of the opinion that due to keeping the vehicle idle for long time there may be some damage to the vehicle such as review mirrors, wipers and head lights which are outside of the car. As the vehicle ran more than one lakh kilometers by the date of purchase by the complainant there may be wear and tear to the tyres. The opposite parties in fair manner admitted to rectify the leakages, wheel alignment of the vehicle and by providing A/c direction knob without any charges but they opposed for replacing the old wiper with new wiper and head lights and side mirrors. For low pick up the J.Drs are not responsible as the vehicle has run more than one lakhs kilometers. Considering the submissions of the opposite parties the District Forum rightly directed the opposite parties to attend the wheel alignment, rectification of leakage of gear box and drive shaft, fixing of A/c direction knob of Logon DLE car free of costs and for fixing of new wiper, fixing of head lights and side view mirrors the complainant has to pay the charges. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.

14. Apart from the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellate court is not executing court (vide provided under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.) The execution ought to have been proceeded before the District Forum. Appeals against the orders of the District Forum would be in the appellate court, and final orders are to be executed before the District Forum. At no circumstance, the appellate court would execute the order by way of independent proceedings. The appellate court generally directs the respondents to pay the amount on confirming the orders of District Forum giving some time. However, it cannot be construed that execution proceedings could be filed before appellate court. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the appeal was disposed of against the order in P.P. proceedings initiated before the District Forum. Therefore, it is the District Fo

rum that has jurisdiction for executing the orders, be its own orders or the orders of the State Commission or National Commission. Moreover, the erstwhile State Commission has already disposed of the appeal F.A.No.428 of 2012 on 04.04.2012 and as such the complainant cannot again agitate the same issue before this Commission. 15. The complainant also alleged the opposite parties are not renewed the insurance policy. But it is the owner of the vehicle who alone is liable to get a valid insurance policy and to get it renewed from time to time. The opposite parties are nothing to do with the renewal of a policy on part of the complainant. On the other hand with regard to the transfer documents of the vehicle the opposite parties have admitted that they already got the same done in favour of the complainant. There are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.