ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - Complaint was filed by the appellant on 23.3.2001. Its claim was that it is an association and under a Scheme it had obtained loan for Rs. 1,50,000/- from H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rohru, for its livelihood. Documents Annexures C.1 and C.2 were attached with this. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent vide receipt copy whereof is annexured as Annexure C.3. It will be appropriate to notice in this behalf that receipt of this amount is not disputed by the respondent. Machinery was ultimately supplied by the respondent on 10.10.2000 and was installed at the shop of the appellant at Rohru. It was old and was not functioning properly as per the appellant. Immediately after installation on 10.10.2000, these facts were brought to the notice of the respondent on the every next day, i.e. 11.10.2000. When no action was taken by him, legal notice was got issued vide Annexure C.4. In this background, claimant was filed by the respondent on his failure to replace the old and defective machine or to refund the cost thereof amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (wrongly shown as Rs. 1,15,000/- in paragraph 8, 10 and prayer clause (a) of the claimant), besides compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of financial loss, mental torture and harassment, expenditure etc. incurred on account of visiting the shop by the respondent on a number of occasions, cost of legal notice to the tune of Rs. 550/- and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost was also claimed. 2. When put to notice, stand of the respondent in its reply was that the appellant had no locus standi to file the present claimant and it was estopped from filing the same due to its own acts, deeds and conduct. The alleged machinery was supplied in the presence of the appellant which was duly received in accurate position, hence claimant was barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed. On the merits of the case, it is admitted by the appellant that machines were purchased by the respondent in the presence of the appellant and handed over to it on 10.10.2000 in accurate and running condition after those were installed in the premises in the presented of the claimant at Rohru. Mechanic of the appellant was also present. On the merits of the case, it is admitted by the appellant that machines were purchased by the respondent in the presence of the appellant and handed over to it on 10.10.2000 in accurate and running condition after those were installed in the premises in the presented of the claimant at Rohru. Mechanic of the appellant was also present. The machinery was handed over in accurate and running position and no difficulty was found at that time, and none was conveyed to the respondent. He came to know of these facts after filing of the claimant as well as notice issued to him. Defects were due to unskilled workers of the appellant and the machines being not properly handled. Defects occurred because of acts and deeds as well as on account of its mis-handling. In these circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the claimant. 3. Before proceedings further, it may be observed that appellant with a view to substantiate its plea that the machinery was defective, filed affidavit of Pramod Kumar, one of its members mentioned in Annexure C.1. This affidavit is dated 25.8.2001 and is at pages 25 and 26 of the claimant file, besides affidavit of one Sedur Singh, Mechanic. It is Annexure C.8 dated 26.8.2001. In this affidavit besides other things, deponent had given the date as 18.9.2000 when he went to Rohru to install/fitting 3 machines which are subject of this appeal. 2 machines; out of 3 were old and were not working properly at the time of installation. To controvert this affidavit on behalf of the appellant, respondent filed evidence duly supported with this affidavit. This evidence is at pages 30 and 32 of the claimant file. After hearing the parties, complaint was allowed by the District Forum below on 19.3.2002. 4. This order of District Forum below was challenged by the respondent in Appeal No. 90/2002. This appeal was allowed on 10.10.2002 by this Commission and after setting aside the order of the District Forum, case was remanded back to the said Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the order of the Commission. 5. After remand of the case, record of the claimant file shows that the claimant filed supplementary affidavit of Mechanic Sedur Singh. It is dated 5.1.2003. 5. After remand of the case, record of the claimant file shows that the claimant filed supplementary affidavit of Mechanic Sedur Singh. It is dated 5.1.2003. While maintaining his earlier stand as contained in Annexure C.8, he only corrected date from 10.9.2000 to 10.10.2000, which according to him was due to typewriting mistake. He further stated that he visited Rohru on 10.10.2000. 6. To this supplementary affidavit, respondent filed his reply by way of his own affidavit. It is dated 20.3.2003. Finally after hearing the parties, claimant was allowed by the District Forum below on 19.5.2003. By means of this order dated 19.5.2003, District Forum directed the respondent to replace old machines supplied to the appellant within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and the appellant was directed to return the defective machines. In addition to this, respondent was burdened with Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 7. Respondent against felt aggrieved from this order of the District Forum below, as such preferred Appeal No. 276/2003, it was allowed on 23.3.2005. 8. Besides other pleas, which found favour with this Commission while allowing Appeal No. 276/2003, the respondent had even requested in his reply cum counter affidavit for calling the said Mechanic, (Sedur Singh) as a witness in order to cross examine him, but District Forum below had completely ignored this submission cum plea. Accordingly, appeal was allowed and for the second time, the order of the District Forum below dated 19.5.2003 was set aside. While allowing the appeal, parties were directed to appear before the District Forum below on 10.5.2005. 9. Record of the case after remand shows that the case was taken up on 16.5.2005, instead of the date fixed when allowing Appeal No. 276/2003. We are sorry to observe that the District Forum below did not comply with the directions of this Commission while remanding the case and disposing of Appeal No. 276/2003 on 23.5.2005 within one month from that date i.e. 10.5.2005. Complaint file also does not suggest, that being unable to comply with the directions to dispose of the claimant within one month, any prayer having been made to this Commission for extension of time. This is not only a serious lapse, but grave act of judicial indiscipline as well as impropriety. Complaint file also does not suggest, that being unable to comply with the directions to dispose of the claimant within one month, any prayer having been made to this Commission for extension of time. This is not only a serious lapse, but grave act of judicial indiscipline as well as impropriety. It has resulted in eroding as well as undermining the authority of this Commission and needs to be seriously viewed. It hardly needs to be emphasized that when a particular direction is given by a higher authority like this Commission to the District Forum, it is meant to be carried out and not to be flouted as is the situation in this case. Accordingly, it was felt necessary to direct all the District Forums to ensure that they carry out all orders/directions/instructions issued in the orders of this Commission strictly, and in case for any reasons beyond control, it is not possible to do the needful, then to ensure that appropriate orders are sought for extension of time, but well before the expiry of the time allowed for doing the needful. 10. After remand of the case, daily order sheet of the claimant file shows that on 13.9.2005 case was adjourned to 18.10.2005 for filing application. On this date, application was not filed and the case was adjourned for final arguments on 5.12.2005. Time was prayed for arguments on this date. It was adjourned to 14.3.2006. On this date it was against adjourned to 3.5.2006, then to 22.5.2006 for arguments. Arguments were not heard on this date i.e. 22.5.2006 and on the prayer of the parties it was adjourned to 12.6.2006. Arguments were heard on this date and case was adjourned to 27.6.2006. Order being not ready, case was adjourned to 9.10.2006 for further hearing. On this date arguments were heard and case was adjourned to 31.10.2006 for orders and finally on this date, the complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 11. From the narration of the above facts, it is admitted case of the parties that appellant had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent for the purchase of 3 machines namely, printing, dye and paper cutting machines. These were supplied and installed on 10.10.2000 according to the parties. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 11. From the narration of the above facts, it is admitted case of the parties that appellant had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent for the purchase of 3 machines namely, printing, dye and paper cutting machines. These were supplied and installed on 10.10.2000 according to the parties. This is being observed in the light of what is stated in paragraph 5 of the claimant and admitted by the respondent in its reply to this para of the claimant. 12. Now the dispute starts. Appellant alleges that on the very next day i.e. 11.10.2000 defects were found and it was also observed that the machines were old. These were brought to the notice of the respondent. In addition to this, further claim of the appellant is that legal notice Annexure C.4 was also issued and on a number of occasions verbally also all these facts were brought to the notice of the respondent but without any consequence, as such it filed the complaint wherein reliefs as noted hereinabove were claimed by it against the respondents. Stand of the respondent as that the machinery installed was new and was handed over in perfect running condition to the appellant. Defects occurred due to its mis-handling etc. on the part of the person handling those. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on his part. 13. In the aforesaid background as already noted, twice appeal was filed earlier and on both occasions appeals preferred by the respondent were allowed and case was remanded back. While allowing Appeal No. 276/2003 on 23.5.2005, what appears to have weighed with this Commission is that in his reply to supplementary affidavit of Sedur Singh, Mechanic, respondent had in order to arrive at the truth of the matter requested for calling said Mechanic as a witness in order to cross examine him. District Forum below had completely ignored this submission cum plea raised by him, i.e. the respondent. 14. Strangely enough when the case was taken up after second remand by the District Forum below, a reference to the day to day orders passed from time to time referred to hereinabove clearly suggests that the respondent became totally oblivious of its plea, as a result of which Appeal No. 276/2003 was allowed by this Commission. 14. Strangely enough when the case was taken up after second remand by the District Forum below, a reference to the day to day orders passed from time to time referred to hereinabove clearly suggests that the respondent became totally oblivious of its plea, as a result of which Appeal No. 276/2003 was allowed by this Commission. No application for summoning Sedur Singh is there on the record of the claimant file and none could be pointed out on behalf of the respondent. As such the prayer to summon the said Sedur Singh for his cross examination to come to the truth appears to have been given up/waived on account of his acts of omission and commission by the respondent. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then I have no reasons to disbelieve the affidavit of Sedur Singh as initially filed, as well as the supplementary affidavit. 15. In the circumstances of this case, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had raised loan from H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. with a view to establish printing press to earn their livelihood. In this behalf Mr. Ranjan further submitted that his client had raised the loan and paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent for buying machines and at the same time loan getting multiplied. Reasons being that it was to be repaid after generating income by running printing machines, two of which were old and all three were defective. In this behalf he placed reliance on the affidavits of Mr. Pramod Kumar, original affidavit of Sedur Singh, as well as supplementary affidavit placed on record when the case was remanded for the first time by this Commission. Thus he prayed for allowing this appeal. 16. All these pleas were seriously contested and resisted by Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent. Per him no reliance can be placed on the affidavit of either Pramod Kumar or on 2 affidavits of Sedur singh, Mechanic. Further according to him this Mechanic figures nowhere in this case. He supported the stand of his client by referring to the reply filed of the claimant which is duly supported with the affidavit of his client, as well as affidavit filed by way of evidence in reply to supplementary affidavit of Sedur Singh. Mr. Further according to him this Mechanic figures nowhere in this case. He supported the stand of his client by referring to the reply filed of the claimant which is duly supported with the affidavit of his client, as well as affidavit filed by way of evidence in reply to supplementary affidavit of Sedur Singh. Mr. Verma also tried to support his client’s case by pointing out that in the original affidavit of the so-called Mechanic had referred 18.9.2000 being the date of installation of the machinery etc. by the said Mechanic at Rohru, whereas in his supplementary affidavit he had stated that 10.9.2000 was mentioned due to typewriting mistake whereas he had visited Rohru for installation of the machines on 10.10.20000. Thus he prayed for upholding the order of the District Forum below while dismissing this appeal. At this juncture, he also pointed out that 3 machines supplied by the appellant were brand new and there were no defects in those. He thus prayed for dismissing this appeal with exemplary costs as this is a frivolous litigation thrust upon the respondent. 17. One fact is clear from the narration of the above facts, that the respondent admits to have supplied as well as installed 3 printing machines on 10.10.2000, as such, capital intended to be made out from the affidavit of Sedur Singh so far this date is concerned, is without any basis. Reason being that respondent himself had admitted in his reply that the machines were installed at Rohru in the premises of the appellant on 10.10.2000. 18. It is also not the case of the respondent, that he himself is a Mechanic or someone else other than Sedur Singh as claimed by the appellant had installed the machines at Rohru on 10.10.2000. In case Sedur Singh had not installed the machines on the admitted date i.e. 10.10.2000, then who was the Mechanic who had installed those, respondent has not placed any material on record. He is silent in his reply on this material and vital aspect. Further it is also not his case set out in the reply that he himself is a Mechanic and had installed the machines himself. Nor it was argued at the time of hearing that the respondent had himself installed the machines. He is silent in his reply on this material and vital aspect. Further it is also not his case set out in the reply that he himself is a Mechanic and had installed the machines himself. Nor it was argued at the time of hearing that the respondent had himself installed the machines. That being the position, the evidence of the appellant that the machines were installed at its premises on 10.10.2000 by Sedur Singh, Mechanic, is clearly established. This position is further reinforced from the original affidavit and the supplementary affidavit of said Sedur Singh, Mechanic. 19. Now coming to the credibility of the said Sedur Singh. Admittedly respondent in his affidavit filed in reply to supplementary affidavit of Sedur Singh had stated as under :- “............... That to justify the veracity of the aforesaid different affidavits of Sedur Singh, the appearance of the aforesaid Mechanic was very much necessary to call him as a witness in person before this Hon’ble Forum.” And as noted hereinabove, this weighed with the State Commission while allowing Appeal No. 276/2003 on 23.3.2005. Unfortunately when the matter came up before the District Forum below, respondent forgot what was observed in the order of this Commission on 23.5.2005 and also did not make any attempt by taking steps to summon said Sedur Singh so that he could be cross examined. Opportunity was allowed on 13.9.2005 for filing application but it was not filed. Order sheet after second remand of the District Forum below does not suggest that any attempt whatsoever was made by the respondent with a prayer to allow him to summon said Sedur Singh for his cross examination, why ? no reasons could be assigned at the time of hearing on his behalf. Though Mr. Verma persisted with vehemence that Sedur Singh was not the Mechanic who had installed the machines on 10.10.2000 at Rohru, this plea is being noted simply to be rejected. 20. In the totally of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the evidence produced by the appellant initially as well as after remand has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged and the evidence on the affidavit of the respondent is nothing but a self serving statement unworthy of any credence. At the risk of repetition it may be observed, that who had installed the machines on 10.10.2000, respondent had remained silent. At the risk of repetition it may be observed, that who had installed the machines on 10.10.2000, respondent had remained silent. He does not claim to have installed those himself. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then decision of this appeal is obvious. 21. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly and as a result of it, while setting aside the order dated 31.10.2006, passed in complaint No. 500/2001, the complaint is allowed. As a result of it, it is ordered as under :- (i) That the appellant shall replace the 2 old machines i.e. printing machine and dye cutting machine with brand new ones by or before 28.2.2009; (ii) In addition to this, he shall pay to the appellant compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment etc.; (iii) In case needful as at (i) and (ii) above is not done within stipulated period, then to refund the cost of above two old and defective machines as per bill issued by the respondent alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.3.2001 till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier, besides Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and inconvenience etc. caused by respondent to the appellant. In case the respondent pays the amount in terms of this relief, then the appellant shall supply 2 machines to the respondent at Rohru; (iv) In both situations i.e. at (i) and (ii) on one hand and (iii) on the other, respondent is held liable for paying punitive costs to the appellant assessed at Rs. 25,000/-, besides Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. Subject to these directions, while allowing the complaint, appeal stands disposed of in these terms. Copy of this order has been made available to the learned Counsel for the parties against receipt today itself. Appeal allowed. M.R.B. ———————