Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/88/2021

M/s Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amar Nath Chauhan - Opp.Party(s)

Jasjit Singh Rattu Adv.

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	A/88/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	25/10/2021
Date   of   Decision	:	13/06/2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     M/s Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 49-47, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.

 

2.     Gurpreet Singh Sidhu Son of Nachhattar Singh resident of House No.317, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

  …. Appellants

 

Versus

 

Amar Nath r/o H.No.27/6, PWD Colony, Near Cantonment Board Office, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

 

…… Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI          PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY                        MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA                        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. J.S. Rattu, Advocate for Appellants.
	:	Judgment Debtor – Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Accused (in custody)
	:	Sh. Amar Nath Chauhan, respondent (on VC).

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

This appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ OPs/Judgment Debtors under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 09.11.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (now "District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh), in Execution Application bearing No.EA/216/2017. By the impugned order, Ld. District Commission has convicted the Managing Director of Appellant No.1 - Company i.e. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up-to-date) and sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and on failure to deposit the fine to further undergo imprisonment for another six months.

2.              Sh. Amar Nath, the Respondent/Complainant (Decree Holder) filed complaint against the Appellants (Judgment Debtor) before District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, which was registered as Consumer Complaint No.1055 of 2016. Vide order dated 03.07.2017, the Ld. District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Appellants, as under: -

“8.     For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed qua Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.11,25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment. 
3. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties jointly & severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum, on the amount as mentioned in sub-para (a) above, from the date of its deposits till it is paid and also on the amount as mentioned in sub-para (b) above from the date of filing this order till realization, besides litigation expenses.”

3.             The Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) did not comply with the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2017 rendered by the Ld. District Commission within the period as stipulated therein, therefore, the Respondent/ Complainant (Decree Holder) preferred Execution Application bearing No. EA/216/2017 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for non-compliance of the order dated 03.07.2017. Pursuant to notice, Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) appeared through Sh. J. S. Rattu, Advocate and sought time to comply with the order under execution. Record transpires, the Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) sought numerous opportunities for making payment to the Respondent/ Complainant (Decree Holder) in compliance of order dated 03.07.2017. Notwithstanding this, Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) failed to make the payment of decreetal amount and thus, failed to make compliance of the order dated 03.07.2017.  The Ld. District Commission, therefore, passed the order dated 09.11.2018 and sentenced the Managing Director of Appellants/ OPs/Judgment Debtors i.e. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu to undergo civil imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and on failure to deposit the fine to further undergo imprisonment of 6 months. Hence, the Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) filed the instant appeal before this Commission.

4.             We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection with their able assistance.

5.             Ld. Counsel for the Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) argued that Gurpreet Singh Sidhu was arrested on 21.09.2021 and since then, he is behind bars. The order of conviction in EA/216/2017 (in CC/1055/2016) was passed in his absence and also without following the due procedure as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. A prayer has been made to allow the appeal and to set-aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.

6.             Per contra, Sh. Amar Nath Chauhan, Respondent/Complainant (Decree Holder) has argued that the Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) did not comply the order passed by the Ld. District Commission despite availing ample opportunities and thereafter, the Ld. District Commission has thus rightly proceeded against the Appellants/OPs (Judgment Debtors) under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was stated that the Ld. District Commission has followed the procedure in correct view and has rightly convicted the Managing Director of Appellants/Opposite Parties (Judgment Debtors) i.e. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and on failure to deposit the fine to further undergo imprisonment of 6 months. The impugned order, thus, passed by the Ld. District Commission, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission as per the view taken by the respondent.

7.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

8.             The procedure to be followed by a Consumer Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came for consideration by Three Members Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in EA No.80/2019 in Consumer Complaint No.14/2015 (Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. vs. Unitech Ltd. & Anr.). 

9.             Although the observations of the Ld. District Commission about the blatant defiance in non-compliance of the orders and backing out of its own commitment is writ large in the present case, yet the Ld. District Commission had not adopted the procedure of summary trial at the time of passing the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellants/Opposite Parties (Judgment Debtors), as provided under the Cr.P.C.  Against the disobedience of the order, Ld. District Commission, had to try the Judgment Debtors by following the summary procedure under the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in line with Cr.P.C., which id did not follow.  To our mind, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Ld. District Commission with a direction to it, to follow the procedure and pass an appropriate order as it had not followed the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code while dealing with the application filed by the appellant under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

10.           Admittedly, no notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given to the Appellant.  No opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was given to him, and no opportunity to lead defence was given to him.  Further, his statement under Section 313 read with section 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded.  

11.           In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly, set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the  District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh to decide the same afresh, following the above referred procedure.

12.           The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

13.           The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

14.           The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 15.07.2022.

15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           Complete record be sent back to the Ld. District Commission concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there before the said date.                

17.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.  

Pronounced

13.06.2022.

 

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad

​