State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sterling Tree Magnum ( India) Ltd., vs 1. Palakurthi Satyanarayana Prasad, ... on 18 June, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.939 OF 2012 AGAINST I.A.NO.5 OF 2012 IN E.A.NO.1 OF 2011 IN E.P.NO.3 OF 2006 IN C.D.NO.116 OF 2003 DISTRICT FORUM VIZIANAGARAM Between: M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum ( India) Ltd., No. 5, 41st Street, 6th Avenue, Ashoknagar, Chennai, Rep. by its Director Mr. R. Subramaniam, S/o. Ratnam, aged about 67 years. Appellant/JDr A N D 1. Palakurthi Satyanarayana Prasad, S/o. Subba Rao, 2. Palakurthi Saroja, W/o. Satyanarayana Prasad, 3. Palakurthi Prasanthi Laxmi, D/o. Satyanarayana Prasad,R 4. Palakurthi Murali Krishna, W/o. Satyanarayana Prasad, 5. Palakurthi Seetha Mahalaxmi, S/o. Subba Rao All are R/o. D. No. 12-2-20, Chinna Veedhi, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440. 6. Chaliki Laxmi, W/o. Venkata Raghavulu, H. No. 12-3-19, Masinavari Street, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440 7. S. V. A. P. Kishore Chaliki, S/o. Veera Raghavulu, (Being minor rep. by his natural father,Next friend and Guardian i.e., Veera raghavulu R/o. Masinavari Street, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440 8. Chaliki Laxmi Kanthamma, C/o. Laxmi Nursing Home, Goli Vari Veedhi, Masinavari Street, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440 9. Maddipudi Veera Raghavulu, C/o. Central Bank of India, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440. 10. Sabbela Venkat Reddy, D. No. 17-4-56, Peddapuram Road, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440. 11. Sabbella Sai Laxmi, W/o. Venkat Reddy, D. No. 17-4-56, Peddapuram Road, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440. 12. Yeleti Murali Krishna , S/o. Parasuram Murthy, D. No. 13-4-43, Chaliki Vari, Samalakota, East Godavari District.-440 13. Choday Rama Rao, D. No. 13-4-43, Chaliki Vari, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440. 14. Choday Veera Raghavamma, W.o. Rama Rao, D. No. 13-4-43, Chaliki Vari, Samalakota, East Godavari District-440 Respondents/complainants 15. The Manager, Customer Services, M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum ( India) Ltd, No. 5, 41st Street, 6th Avenue, , Ashoknagar Chennai-001 16. The Branch Manager, M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum ( India) Ltd, Bye-Pass Road, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District-502 17. District Forest Officer, Vizianagaram-202 18. G. V. Subba Rao, Contractor, For Teak Planation, Plot No.28, Phase-III, Autonagar, Vijayawada-001 Respondents/opposite parties. Counsel for the Appellant M/s V.R.Avula Counsel for the Respondent M/s M.Hari Babu (R1 to R14) M/s G.P. for State(R17) QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. M/s Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum passed in I.A.No.5 of 2012 on the premise that the appellant is not party to the proceedings in C.D.No.116 of 2003 and that as such there is no order against the appellant. It is contended that execution proceedings in E.P.No.3 of 2006 is not maintainable against the appellant. Further, the appellant has contended that the EP schedule property is standing in the name of the appellant and as such the order cannot be executed against the property of the appellant. It is contended that the order was passed against the manager of the appellant company and not against the appellant company.
2. The appellant has filed I.A.No.5 of 2012 in E.A.No.1 of 2011 filed by the complainants. The District Forum passed an order on 3.12.2004 in C.D.No.116 of 2003 whereby it has allowed the complaint and directed the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- for each tree purchased by each complainant and also to pay interim dividend to each of the complainants as per the terms of teakquity certificate. The first opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation for suffering mental tension and Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the complainants. The complaint was not pressed against the opposite party no.2 by the complainant and the District Forum dismissed the complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4.
3. The complainants filed execution application E.P.3 of 2006 u/s 25 of the C.P.Act seeking for attachment and sale of the property of the opposite party no.1. The District Forum has allowed the EP and issued certificate to the District Collector for recovery of the amount as awarded on 3.12.2004. The certificate was issued directing the District Collector to sell EP schedule property belonging to the first opposite party under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act.
4. The complainant filed another execution proceedings, E.A.No.1 of 2011 on 4.1.2011 for recovery of amount of `27,79,000/- and the District Forum allowed the application on 6.1.2011 directing the District Collector Vizianagaram to sell the property and realize the amount under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum passed on 6.1.2011 the appellant filed writ petition, WP 8307 of 2012 before the Honble High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 27.3.2012 giving liberty to the appellant to raise all objections before the District Forum or file appeal before the State Commission. The appellant filed interlocutory application, I.A.No.5 of 2012 in E.A.No.1 of 2011 in E.P.No.3 of 2006 on 16.6.2012 seeking for declaration that proceedings in C.D.No.116 of 2003 dated 3.12.2004 of the District Forum are not binding on the appellant and to set aside the order passed in E.P. and the sale letter which was issued in accordance of the direction issued in the EP.
6. The District Forum has dismissed the application on the premise that the appellant company had already cut and sold away some of the teak plants and a sum of `10 lakh deposited by the JDr was released to the decree holders on 10.5.2012 and that technicalities of procedure is not applicable to the facts of the case. The District Forum observed that the manager is the representative of the appellant company.
7. The point for consideration whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of fact or law?
8. Insofar as factual aspect of the case is concerned, there is no any dispute as to the complaint being allowed directing the first opposite party to pay the amount to the complainants and in initiating of execution proceedings for realization of a sum of `10 lakh by attachment and sale of the property of the appellant company under provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainants filed the complaint against the manager of the appellant company and not against the appellant company and as such there cannot be any order in force against the appellant company and in the absence of any order thereof, execution of the order in C.D.No.116 of 2003 cannot be made against the property of the appellant company.
9. The learned counsel for the complainants has contended that the appellant cannot contend that it is not party to the proceedings as the order was passed against the manager customer services of the appellant company and not in his individual capacity nor on his individual name. He has contended that the appellant had althrough knowledge and the information at every stage of complaint and EP and it had not raised any objection as to the maintainability of the complaint or execution proceedings on the ground that it is not made party to the proceedings.
10. The only objection for enforcement of the order passed by the District Forum, for the appellant is that it is not made party to the proceedings in the CD. A perusal of the case record would show that the appellant permitted its manager to file written statement. The order passed in the CD is not an exparte order. It was passed on contest and the appellant althrough defended its action of not making payment of the amount to the complainants. The appellant has not raised objection at any point of time either the CD was pending before the District Forum or during pendency of execution proceedings that it has no concern with its manager and it had not authorized its manager to defend the claim. It is pertinent to note that some of the teak trees were cut off and sold during pendency of execution proceedings and a sum of `10 lakh out of the decretal amount was deposited by the appellant which was paid to the complainants. Throughout the execution proceedings till deposit the appellant company has not raised objection that it is not a party to the proceedings.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Vishwabharathi House Buidling Coop. Society and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412. The learned counsel for the complainants placed reliance upon the following decisions:
1. State of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs Harvinder Sing, CDJ 2008 SC 275
2. Indian Council for Envirolegal Act Vs Union of India and others 2011 STPL 717 SC
3. Coal Linker Vs Coal India Ltd., CDJ 2010 SC 003
12. In Viswabarathis decision the Honble Supreme Court considered the power of the Consumer Forum in regard to execution of its order under the provisions of Sec.25 and 27 of C.P.Act. The decision was rendered subsequent to the amendment of the C.P.Act in 2003.
13. Indian Council is a case where the Apex Court held that an executing court cannot go behind its order and that it should not exceed its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court deprecated filing of application after application to resist execution of the order as under:
It may be pertinent to mention that even after dismissal of review petition and of the curative petition on 18.07.2002, the applicants 9 respondents No. 4 to 8) have been repeatedly filing one petition or the other in order to keep the litigation alive. It is indeed astonishing that the orders of this court have not been implemented till date. The applications have made all possible efforts to avoid compliance of the judgment of this court. This is a clear case of abuse of process of the court. and para 228 The applicant industry is also directed to pay costs of litigation. Even after final judgment of this court, the litigation has been kept alive for almost 15 years. The respondents have been compelled to defend this litigation for all these years. Enormous courts time has been wasted for all these years.
14. In Coal Linkers decision, the Apex Court upheld the decision in Harvindeers case that executing court cannot go behind the decree.
15. The learned counsel for the complainants has contended that the manager of the appellant company is no other person than its director who deposited the amount of Rs.10 lakh before the District Forum and subsequently withdrawn the writ petition is liable to pay the balance decretal amount. We find acceptable force in the contention of the learned counsel of the complainants that the director of the appellant company filed the application, I.A.No.5 of 2012 wherein the appellant in the cause title is mentioned as The Director, Sterling Magnum India Ltd., Sri R.Subramaniam, Chennai. The intention of appellant company to defend the complaint and resist the execution proceedings has been made known. If the contention of the appellant company is considered its true spirit, the appellant company represented by its director or managing director only can file the application, I.A.No.5 of 2012 and not the director can file application. The appellant company having filed the application with the aforementioned cause title cannot be heard to say that the order against it is not maintainable and not an order in the eye of law.
16. In view of the appellant company clearly defending that it has no branch office at Vizianagaram and having resisted the claim, having made part payment of the decretal amount, cannot say that the order passed by the District Forum is not enforceable against it. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant having proceeded with the complaint and resisted the execution proceedings, cannot contend that its description in the cause title of the complaint would render the order passed in CD and execution proceedings as void.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the District Forum cannot be enforced against the property of the appellant company.
The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order fo the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.18.06.2013 కె.ఎం.కె.*