State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Varinder Singh Chandel. vs Sh. Inder Dev. on 29 April, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 57/2016
Date of Presentation:10.03.2016
Date of Decision: 29.04.2016
.....................................................................................
Shri Varinder Singh Chandel,
Managing Director -cum- Proprietor,
Bhoomi Agrotech Makers of Hi Tech Green Houses,
Poly tunnels, NH-88, Opposite Co-operative Bank,
Kandrour, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
... Appellant.
Versus
Shri Inder Dev Singh,
Son of Shri Partap Chand,
Resident of Village Barot,
Post Office Baro Banal,
Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondent
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. N.S Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 20.02.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, camp at Jawali, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (F.A. No.57/2016) pay fine of `10,000/-, under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for having allegedly not complied with the District Forum's order dated 21.06.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No.267/2010.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Respondent, Inder Dev Singh, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellant alleging that he had got a polyhouse constructed from the appellant by paying an amount of `5,88,000/-, but the appellant used substandard material and workmanship was also of poor quality, because of which the polyhouse got damaged.
3. Complaint was contested by the appellant. Learned District Forum, however, allowed the complaint, vide order dated 21.06.2013 and directed the appellant to carry out repair within thirty days of the receipt of order, failing which to refund the amount of `5,88,000/-, charged as cost of polyhouse, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of complaint, to the date of payment of the 2 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (F.A. No.57/2016) aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `25,000/-, as damages and `5,000/-, on account of costs.
4. No appeal was filed by either side, against the aforesaid order of learned District Forum. In September 2013, execution petition was filed by the respondent against the appellant, alleging that the repair of polyhouse had not been carried out within thirty days time limit and, therefore, he was liable to refund the amount, with interest, as directed by the learned District Forum. Record of the execution petition shows that appellant had been playing hide & seek with the court, as he would not appear before the learned District Forum, even after service of notice. He filed a revision petition before this Commission, which was registered at No.25/2015. That revision petition was withdrawn and liberty was reserved to the appellant to file objections in the execution petition, filed by the respondent. Record of learned District Forum shows that appellant thereafter did not appear before the Forum and the Forum passed the impugned order 3 Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (F.A. No.57/2016) dated 20.02.2016, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment and pay fine, as aforesaid.
5. Counsel representing the appellant says that objections were sought to be filed, but learned District Forum did not take the same on record. Though, there is no material on record, substantiating the plea, yet considering the fact that the report of Horticulture Officer, submitted in the present appeal, shows that on inspection on 25.07.2013, it was found that the polyhouse had been damaged due to heavy storm and its sheets were damaged beyond repair, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to be afforded an opportunity to file objections in the execution petition. Unsigned copy of the objections, which has been shown to us today, by the counsel for the appellant, has been returned.
6. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and it is directed that the learned District Forum shall permit the appellant to file objection petition and before passing any order, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall decide those objections, on merits.
4
Varinder Singh Chandel Versus Inder Dev Singh (F.A. No.57/2016)
7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, on 17.05.2016.
8. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member April 29, 2016.
GAURAV) 5