Haryana

StateCommission

RA/12/2022

RAJEEV SHAHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMAR ESTATES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA Panchkula

 

  Date of Instituion:27.12.2022

                Date of final hearing:09.01.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 06.02.2023

 

 

Review Application No.12 of 2022 in

Execution Application No.06 of 2020 in

Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Rajiv Shahi aged 47 years, s/o Sh. Late Shri Banarsi Dass Shahi, R/o House No.240, Sector-18, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Decree Holder

 

Versus

 

1.    M/s Samar Estate Pvt. Ltd., Site/Admn. Office: Ess Vee Apartments, Sector 20,Panchkula, Regd. Office: Ess Vee Apartments, in front of GHS-105, Sector-20, Panchkula-134112 through its Managing Director.

2.    Shri Vinod Bagai, Managing Director, M/s Samar Estate Pvt.Ltd., Site/Admn. Office: Ess Vee Apartments, Sector 20,Panchkula, Regd. Office: Ess Vee Apartments, in front of GHS-105, Sector-20, Panchkula-134112 through its Managing Director.

 

….Applicants-Judgment Debtors.

 

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Kamal K.Chaudhary, counsel for the applicants-Judgment Debtors.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

                    There is a delay of 08 days in filing of the present review application.

 2.               Present Review Application U/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act read with 427 Cr.PC has been filed for observing the nature of the sentence being concurred in the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in the Execution Application No.06 of 2020 in Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016, vide which Shri Vinod Bagai, Managing Director of present applicants-Judgment Debtors was punished with simple imprisonment for a term of one year with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Kamal K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants. With his kind assistance the review application has also been properly perused and examined.

4.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. Kamal K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants that the above mentioned execution application was decided by this Cmmisison on 15^th November, 2022 alongwith E.A. No.48 of 2019 in CC No.61 of 2017, E.A No.20 of 2022 in CC No.170 of 2017 and E.A. No.13 of 2019 in CC No392 of 2016, in which the judgment debtor (Shri Vinod Bagai) was punished with a simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.10,000/- He further argued that while considering the medical conditions of the applicant/judgment Debtor, this court omitted to observe that the sentence shall run concurrently alongwith all the other above stated executions, in its order dated 15^th November, 2022. He further argued that sentence passed by this Commission vide order dated 15^th November, 2022 may please be made concurrent with the sentences passed in other executions in the interest of justice.

5.                Perusal of the file shows that the present review application was filed on 27.12.2022 for reviewing the order dated 15^th November, 2022. As per Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 State Commission has the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the fact of the record itself, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order. Since, the applicants-Judgment Debtors have filed this application after 30 days, hence the present review application deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone.

6.                Moreover, warrant of custody on account of sentence of Shri Vinod Bagai S/o Shri Nand Lal, R/o House No.87, Sector-7, Panchkula, was also issued by this Commission, which is reproduced as under:-

“Shri Vinod Bagai S/o Shri Nand Lal has been sentenced in the above four cases with simple imprisonment for a term of one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. It has also been mentioned in the order that “if the opposite parties-Judgment Debtors happen to pay the award amount in its entirety as per the award under execution to the complainant-Decree Holder then he should be released forthwith. If, Judgment Debtors-opposite parties fails to deposit Rs.10,000/- as fine, the Judgment Debtors-opposite parties will also undergo one month imprisonment”.

Since, Shri Vinod Bagai has failed to pay awarded amount to the complainant as well as fine, therefore, you are directed to confine him in your Jail (Central Jail, Ambala) as per requirement of the above order.”

Hence, the present review application stands dismissed.

7.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

8.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 06^th February, 2023                                                                                                                                                                                        S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench            

 

         

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench