State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Varinder Singh Chandel. vs Sh. Inder Dev Singh. on 9 March, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 44/2016
Date of Presentation: 22.09.2016
Order Reserved On : 02.03.2017
Date of Order : 09.03.2017
......
Shri Varinder Singh Chandel
Managing Director-cum-Proprietor
Bhoomi Agrotech Makers of Hi-Tech Green Houses
Poly Tunnels NH-88 Opposite Cooperative Bank
Kandrour District Bilaspur H.P.
...... Revisionist/Opposite party
Versus
Shri Inder Dev Singh s/o Shri Partap Chand
Resident of Village Barot Post Office Baro Banal
Tehsil Fatehpur District Kangra Himachal Pradesh
......Non-revisionist/Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionist : None.
For Non-revisionist : Mr. Mandeep Singh Advocate vice
Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta Advocate
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R:- Present revision petition filed under section 17(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 31.08.2016 passed by District Executing Forum Kangra at Dharmashala camp at Jawali in execution application No. 57 of 2013 title Inder Dev Singh Versus Varinder Singh Chandel. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) Brief facts of Case:
2. Shri Inder Dev Singh filed consumer complaint No.267/2010 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 title Inder Dev Singh Versus Varinder Singh Chandel. Consumer complaint was disposed of by learned District Forum on dated 30.04.2011 with order that opposite party would replace defective material used for construction of poly-house or would pay Rs.588500/- (Five lacs eighty eight thousand five hundred) to the complainant received by opposite party for construction of poly-house. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand). Learned District Forum further ordered that complainant would also be entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) from opposite party. Learned District Forum further ordered that litigation charges to the tune of Rs.5000/- would be paid by opposite party. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would comply with order of District Forum within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite party filed appeal No.266/2011 title Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh before State Commission. State Commission remanded complaint to learned District Forum with the direction to decide the complaint afresh after affording an opportunity to opposite party to contest complaint. State 2 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) Commission directed parties to appear before learned District Forum on 02.08.2012. On dated 02.08.2012 learned District Forum directed opposite party to file version on 27.08.2012 at Jawali. Learned District Forum on 02.08.2012 granted last opportunity to opposite party to file version. Version not filed by opposite party despite last opportunity granted to file version.
Learned District Forum on 27.08.2012 closed right of opposite party to file version by order of District Forum. Thereafter Learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that complainant does not want to lead any additional evidence. Learned District Forum listed case for final arguments on 21.09.2012 at Jawali. Thereafter Shri Varinder Singh opposite party filed revision petition No. 51 of 2012 against order dated 27.08.2012 before State Commission title Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh. State Commission set aside order dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned District Forum and directed parties to appear before learned District Forum on 21.12.2012 and State Commission further directed that before 21.12.2012 opposite party would file reply before learned District Forum. State Commission also imposed costs to the tune of Rs.2000/- upon opposite party.
3. Thereafter on 17.01.2013 opposite party filed version. On 20.02.2013 learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that complainant already adduced evidence and does not want to adduce any further evidence. Thereafter learned District Forum directed opposite party to 3 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) adduce evidence by way of affidavit. Opposite party adduced evidence by way of affidavit and closed evidence. Thereafter case was listed for arguments. On 21.06.2013 learned District Forum partly allowed complaint and ordered that opposite party would repair poly-house of complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which opposite party would refund Rs.5.88 lacs (Five lacs eighty eight thousand) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its actual payment. Learned District Forum also ordered that opposite party would pay damages to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand). Thereafter Shri Inder Singh filed execution application No. 57 of 2013 before Learned Executing Forum under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for execution of order dated 21.06.2013.
4. Thereafter on 06.05.2015 Learned Executing Forum imposed penalty of Rs.500000/- (Five lacs) under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure upon surety and Learned Executing Forum further directed that warrant be sent to Collector to recover amount of penalty as per law. Learned Executing Forum also issued NBW against surety for 11.06.2015. Thereafter revisionists namely Varinder Singh and surety Punit Puri filed revision petition No.25 of 2015 before State Commission. On dated 27.10.2015 Shri Varinder Singh and Shri Punit Puri 4 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) withdrew revision petition with liberty reserved to revisionists to file objections if any to execution application pending before Learned Executing Forum. Revision petition was disposed of by State Commission on 27.10.2015.
5. Thereafter on 20.02.2016 in execution application No.57 of 2013 Learned Executing Forum imposed penalty under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 upon opposite party for non-compliance of order of Learned District Forum. Learned Executing Forum ordered that opposite party would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and would also pay a fine of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). Learned District Forum further ordered that in default of payment of fine opposite party would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Thereafter Shri Varinder Singh filed appeal No. 57 of 2016 against order dated 20.02.2016 passed by Learned Executing Forum which was decided by State Commission 29.04.2016. State Commission ordered Learned Executing Forum to permit opposite party to file objections before passing any order under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission allowed appeal and set aside order passed by Learned Executing Forum dated 20.02.2016. State Commission ordered parties to appear before Learned Executing Forum on 17.05.2016. Thereafter on 31.08.2016 Learned Executing Forum in execution application No.57 of 2013 dismissed objections filed by opposite party and ordered opposite party to pay remaining amount on or before 24.09.2016.
5
Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016)
6. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 31.08.2016 passed by Learned Executing Forum present revision petition filed by Shri Varinder Singh Chandel opposite party before State Commission.
7. None appeared on behalf of revisionist/opposite party. Since execution petition is pending since 2013 and requires expeditious disposal State Commission decided to dispose of revision petition on merits. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arises for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revision petition filed by the revisionist/opposite party is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Plea of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Executing Forum did not comply mandatory provisions as mentioned under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that execution proceedings under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are punitive proceedings. It is also well settled law that under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 District Forum is 6 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) under legal obligation to follow procedure mentioned under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. As per section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 offence under section 27 would be tried summarily by learned District Forum. Object of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
10. As per chapter XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and as per section 262 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 procedure of trial of summon cases would be applicable in a summary trial. Procedure for trial of summon cases is mentioned in chapter XX of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 as follows: (i) Substance of accusation to be stated (ii) Conviction upon plea of guilty (iii) Procedure when not convicted on plea of guilty. To take evidence produced by complaint. To hear opposite party. To take all evidence produced by opposite party in defence. To announce final order under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 recording substance of evidence.
Final order under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 would contain brief statement of reasons.
11. It is well settled law that section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not dependent upon section 25 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is independent section. See 2002 (2) CPC 536 Punjab M/s. Golden Forests (India) Ltd. Versus Satwinder Bedi. See 2008 (1) CPC 45 Delhi High Court (DB) Prudential capital Markets Ltd. Versus Dipankar Guha. See 7 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) 1999 (2) CPC 222 M/s. Wheels World Versus Jagjit Singh Kang & Anr. (Punjab). In the present case Learned Executing Forum did not comply provisions of summary trial mentioned in chapter XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is held that Learned Executing Forum has committed material procedural irregularity in the present case while proceeding under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because proceedings under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are punitive proceedings and are governed by procedure mentioned under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for summary trial. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
12. In view of findings upon point No.1 revision petition is allowed and order of learned Executing Forum dated 31.08.2016 is set aside. Learned Executing Forum is ordered to comply provisions of chapter XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in the present case in accordance with law as mentioned for summary trial. Learned District Executing Forum Kangra (H.P.) would dispose of execution application within three months because proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are time-bound proceedings. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Executing Forum Kangra (H.P.) on 30.03.2017. Observations will not effect merits of case and will be strictly confined for disposal of revision petition. File of learned District Forum Kangra (H.P.) alongwith certified copy 8 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (R.P. No.44/2016) of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 09.03.2017.
GAURAV} 9