State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Angrej Singh vs M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd. on 4 October, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.25 of 2021
Date of institution : 29.09.2021
Date of decision : 04.10.2021
Mr. Angrej Singh son of Sh. Ravel Singh, Village Achanak, Tehsil
Budhlada, District Mansa now resident of Flat No.1, Block B-7, Jamuna
Apartments, Kharar.
....Petitioner/Decree Holder
Versus
M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, through its Managing Director, Sh. Jarnail
Singh Bajwa, Office at Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, Distt.
Mohali.
....Respondent/Judgment Debtor
Revision Petition against the order dated
18.08.2021 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
1. Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3. Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate. Revision Petition No.25 of 2021 2 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The petitioner/Decree Holder namely Angrej Singh filed Consumer Complaint No.519 of 2016 against the respondent/JD under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as "The Act") before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be called as "the District Commission"), S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) alleging 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice', which was allowed by issuing direction to the respondent to refund the amount of ₹5,00,300/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 22.06.2016 till the payment was made. An amount of ₹20,000/- was awarded towards compensation for mental harassment and agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of ₹5,000/-. The said amount was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Commission and vide order dated 27.09.2018, the order passed by the District Commission was modified to the extent that the petitioner/complainant was entitled to the refund of the deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual payment, instead of date of legal notice.
3. The order passed by the State Commission was not complied with and being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant filed an Execution Application before the District Commission under Section 27 of the Act for Revision Petition No.25 of 2021 3 issuance of directions to the respondent/JD to comply with order dated 27.09.2018 or in the alternative, for punishing the respondent as per provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The execution application came up for hearing on different dates and eventually on 17.06.2020, warrants of arrest of respondent were issued. The respondent appeared on 01.10.2020 and his bail application was allowed, as a post dated cheque of ₹2,50,000/- was brought as part payment against the total amount of ₹10,80,198/-. The bail bonds were accepted and the respondent was released on bail with the direction to appear on the next date of hearing i.e. 05.04.2021 for making payment of balance amount. The cheque so presented to the banker on 09.02.2021 was not encashed on the ground of "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, a number of dates were given by the District Commission, but there was no progress.
4. Mr. Abhishek Bhateja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Commission, which has been modified by the State Commission, has not been complied with and bail granted to the respondent has not been cancelled, in-spite of the fact that cheque submitted by him was dishonoured. A number of dates have been given, but no action has been taken as per provisions of Section 27 of the Act. A prayer has also been made before this Commission that bail bonds of the respondent be cancelled and warrants of arrest be issued.
5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the order passed by the District Commission as Revision Petition No.25 of 2021 4 well as State Commission and various documents/zimini orders passed in the Execution Application.
6. A specific query has been put to learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds, which have been mentioned in the present Revision Petition, should have been taken in the application to be submitted before the executing Court, but the same has not been moved, by stating that the District Commission is not issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest in-spite of the fact that a number of dates were given and oral request was also made.
7. By considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of orders passed by the District Commission in the execution, it is apparent that the cheque submitted by the respondent/JD has not been encashed and the same has been dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. It is also not disputed that bailable warrants were issued earlier, but subsequently the case came up for hearing and following orders were passed:
"05.04.2021 Present: None for the complainant/DH Sh.Inderpal Singh, cl for the OP/JD Order Coram is incomplete as ld. President is availing quarantine leave due to his daughter being positive case of COVID-19. Adjourned to 27.04.2021 for making remaining payment."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Dated : 27 April 2021 Revision Petition No.25 of 2021 5 "Present: Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate for the complainant/DH Order Case is adjourned for 01.06.2021."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dated : 01 June 2021
Present: Sh. Gauav Gupta, cl for
complainant/DH
Sh.Inderpal Singh, cl for the OP/JD
Order
File taken up today as the same counsel not be taken up on 27.04.2021 as the Ld. President was on quarantined leave Counsel for the OP/JD seeks time for making the balance payment. Put up for 18.08.2021 for making the balance payment."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dated : 18 August 2021
Present: Sh. Abhishek Bhateja cl for the
complainant/DH
Ms. Divya Jairath / Sh. Inderpal
Singh, cl. for the OPs/JDs.
Order
Counsel for the OPs/JDs seeks adjournment on the ground that accused is already making the payment in the Hon'ble State Commission as well as in the District Courts. Adjournment is allowed. Put up for 06.10.2021 for making the balance payment."
8. On perusal of said orders, it is apparent that the orders have been passed in a casual manner without going through the same and adjourned the case on one ground or the other. It appears that the respondent is not interested in complying with the order already passed. Even the cheque issued by the respondent/JD has been dishonoured, which shows the intention of respondent party. It appears that the Revision Petition No.25 of 2021 6 respondent is playing hide and seek with the Court also. However, keeping in view the short date i.e. 06.10.2021, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present revision petition with the direction to the District Commission to pass appropriate order and take necessary action, in accordance with law/provisions of the Act, either on the next date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2021 or by giving a short date of two weeks in the execution application pending before the District Commission.
9. Since the Revision Petition is disposed of, the pending Misc. Application also stands disposed of.
10. Copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed to be present before the District Commission on the next date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2021.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER October 04, 2021.
(Gurmeet S)