Ashok Kumar son of late Sh. Daya Sagar Singla, Director M/s Shivcon Infrastructures Enterprises Ltd., resident of House No.2632, Sector 21, Panchkula, District Panchkula.

(Now confined at Burail Jail,Chandigarh).

……Appellant/Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.3

V e r s u s

1.UnionTerritory,Chandigarh.

....Respondent No.1

2.Ashutosh Goyal @ Ashu Goyal son of late Sh. Harish Chand Goyal, resident of House No.419, Sector 20A, Chandigarh.

Appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              by Ashok Kumar, appellant/Opposite Party No.3, as also Capt. Kanwar Sat Pal Singh, Opposite Party No.5, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months.

2.           

3.           

4.              

“In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The OPs are directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.6.50 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the respective deposits till realization, alongwith a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by him at the hands of OPs and for adopting an unfair trade practice by the OPs.

The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they will be liable to pay the amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.6.2008, till realization. The OPs shall also pay costs of litigation, which is quantified at Rs.500/-.”

5.            

6.           

7.           

8.           

9.           

10.        

11.         

12.        

13.        

“I hand over the Patiala,Chandigarh 

Since compromise has been arrived at between the parties which is at Annexure 

14.        

“I have received demand draft bearing No.281799 dated 19.3.2014 payable at State Bank ofPatiala,Chandigarh

15.        

16.        

17.         

18.        

19.        

20.        

Pronounced.

31.03.2014

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.108 of 2014)

Argued by:

Dated the 31^st 

ORDER

2.           

3.            

“From the scheme of the Act it becomes apparent that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted

protection of the interest of the consumers, as a measure for economical and speedy remedy for the settlement of their disputes and matters connected therewith. It is with this object in view that Rule 4 (10) has also been made. It provides for communication of the order of the district Forum to the parties free of charge in order to avoid the delay as well as to save the parties from the burden of expenses that may be incurred for obtaining the certified copy. If the rule itself enjoins a duty for communicating the order of the District Forum duly signed and dated to the parties free of charge, there will hardly be an occasion for the parties to make an application for obtaining a certified copy thereof. Thus, Section 15 of the Act cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read alongwith Rules 4 (10) and 8 (3) of the Rules and a combined reading of Section 15 and the Rules reproduced above gives an impression that the purposes, object and intention of these statutory provisions is to protect the interest of the parties before the District Forum by making it obligatory on the District Forum to provide a copy of the order duly signed and dated by the members of the Bench and the period of limitation prescribed with regard to the filing of an appeal shall be computed as commencing from the date of communication of the order in the manner laid down in sub-rule (10) of the Rule 4”.

4.            , a case decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Goa at Panaji. As per the provisions of Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, certified copy of the order impugned was required to be sent to each of the parties, free-of-charge. Similar provision exists in Rule 4(10) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. To find out, as to whether, certified copy of the order dated 12.07.2010 was ever communicated to the applicant/appellant, free-of-charge, before, 20.02.2014, the date on which the appellant, was arrested and ordered to be sent to Burail Jail, Chandigarh, the report of the concerned Official was obtained. Mrs. Neelam Bartia, Jr. Assistant, posted in this Commission, who was posted in the District Forum, at the relevant time, made a written report, to the effect, that certified copy of the order dated 12.07.2010, passed in Criminal Petition/Execution Application No.05 of 2010 was never sent to the parties, as there was no specific order, with regard to the same. The perusal of 

5.           

6.           

7.           

8.           

9.           

Sd/-                           

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.))

PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER