State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brig D S Grewal vs M/S Castle Concrete Infrastructure ... on 5 April, 2021
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Miscellaneous Application No. : 205 of 2021 Date of Institution : 01.03.2021 Date of Decision : 05.04.2021 Brig. D.S. Grewal Vs. M/s Castle Concrete Infrastructure P. Ltd. & Ors. (Non-applicant) (Applicant) BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
Present through video conferencing:
Brig. D.S. Grewal, non-applicant/decree holder no.1 in person.
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT This application has been filed by the convict-Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2, through Deputy Superintendent Gr.1, Model Jain, Chandigarh, as he (Aashish Goel) is undergoing sentence in Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh, awarded by this Commission, vide order dated 17.05.2012, in execution applications bearing no.35, 36 and 37 of 2011 for non-compliance of order dated 20.07.2010 passed in the main consumer complaints. Vide this application-Sh.Aashish Goel has sought physical appearance before this Commission, on the ground that he is willing to settle the amount as per the order dated 20.07.2010 aforesaid.
This application has been contested by the decree holder/non-applicant by stating that since Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 has lost all the legal battles including the earlier applications bearing nos.820, 821 and 822 of 2020 for suspension of the sentence which he is undergoing, for non compliance of the order impugned in totality, as such, this application filed by him for his physical appearance before this Commission will not serve any purpose and deserves dismissal. The decree holder/non-applicant has also placed on record a copy of order passed dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, whereby, the application bearing no.41951 of 2020 filed by Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.458 dated 23.10.2009 under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, was dismissed by observing that no ground is made out to extend the concession of bail to him.
We have heard the non-applicant/decree holder no.1 and have also gone through the record of the case including this application filed by Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 and its reply filed by the decree holders, very carefully.
It may be stated here that perusal of the record reveals that earlier also, on the request of Counsel for the applicant-Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2, physical hearing was afforded to him, to settle the dispute. However, on 08.01.2021, Counsel for the applicant-Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 offered to make payment of Rs.10 Lakhs to the decree holders, which offer was out rightly rejected by Brig. D. S. Grewal, Decree Holder No.1 in the presence of his Counsel. Even earlier also, opportunity was given to the judgment debtors during Lok Adalat on 12.12.2020, however, the judgment debtors failed to settle the dispute and also failed to honour the decree passed. As such, earlier applications bearing no.820, 821 and 822 of 2020 filed by filed by Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2, in execution applications bearing no.35,36 and 37 of 2011 respectively had also been dismissed by this Commission while holding as under:-
".........8. First of all, it is important to mention here that on the request of Counsel for the applicant/Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2, physical hearing was afforded in these matters to settle the dispute. However, on 08.01.2021, Counsel for the applicant/Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 offered to make payment of Rs.10 Lakhs to the decree holders, which offer was out rightly rejected by Brig. D. S. Grewal, Decree Holder No.1 in the presence of his Counsel. Even earlier also, opportunity was given to the judgment debtors during Lok Adalat on 12.12.2020, however, the judgment debtors failed to settle the dispute and also failed to honour the decree passed.
9. In our considered opinion, these applications seeking suspension of sentence of Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 deserve dismissal for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter:-
10. It may be stated here that in this case, Brig. D. S. Grewal, Decree Holder No.1, who is a decorated soldier and son of Col. Pritam Singh, a 2nd World War Veteran, fought on the borders of the country to protect the integrity of the country, had lost his hard earned money due to the malpractices and fraudulent transactions of the builder/judgment debtors. The decree under execution was passed on 20.07.2010 and when the opposite parties (judgment debtors herein) failed to comply with the said order, these execution applications were filed on 08.12.2011. In execution proceedings, the judgment debtors did not appear before this Commission despite duly served and as such, they were accordingly proceeded against exparte on 08.05.2012. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.05.2012, sentence was imposed upon the judgment debtors as under:-
"15. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion, that it is eminently a fit case, in which he provisions of Section 27 of the Act, should be invoked, with all rigor. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, unended travails and miseries of the complainants/Decree Holders, contumacious defiance of the order dated 2007.2010, with impunity, by the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, and considering the fact that the faith of the Consumers, is not shattered, in the Consumer Foras, set up for speedy redressal of grievances, the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, do not deserve any leniency, in the matter of imposition of sentence. The Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties are sentenced, under Section 27 of the Act, as under ;
Sr. No. Name of the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties Sentence awarded U/s 27 of the Act
1. M/s Castle Concrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1) Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the amount shall be recovered from its property.
2. Mr. Ashish Goel, Managing Director/Director (Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.2) Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
3. Mrs. Sumita Goel, Director (Judgment Debtor No.3/Opposite Party No.3) Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
11. Even thereafter, Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 did not appear before this Commission and kept on evading the service of bailable/non-bailable warrants. Unfortunate aspect of the case was that even the Chandigarh Police was hapless to nab him and his wife, namely, Smt. Sumita Goel, judgment debtor No.3. They both were declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 31.05.2016. It is also pertinent to mention here that Sh. Aashish Goel was once arrested by Chandigarh Police but he was released on the way to Chandigarh from Satna (Madhya Pradesh) without any cogent reason and raising a flimsy plea that he escaped from the custody of Chandigarh Police. Ultimately, he was arrested on 29.01.2020 and was produced before this Commission on 30.01.2020. A due opportunity was granted to him to make the payment of the entire decretal amount but he showed his inability to pay the same. As such, since already a sentence order had been passed against him, his sentence warrant was prepared and he was sent to Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh to undergo awarded sentence. His wife i.e. judgment debtorNo.3 is still at large.
12. It may also be stated here that the petition (No.451 of 2020) under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in Case FIR No.458 dated 23.10.2009 u/s 420, 406, 120-B, I.P.C. moved by the applicant/judgment No.1 (Aashish Goel) before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2020. While doing so, it was recorded by the said Court that "Even the compromise cannot be said to have been finalized as during the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner himself also argued that the complainant is now demanding more money." It was also observed that Sh. Aashish Goel though declared proclaimed offender on 27.09.2012 yet he was arrested after a long period of eight years. It was also observed that the past conduct of the petitioner showed that if he is released on bail then there is possibility of his running away to escape the trial. Not only this, his third bail application bearing No.1384 of 2020 was also dismissed by the same Court vide order dated 25.11.2020 wherein it was observed that the conduct of the petitioner showed that he evaded the process of law for a long time and that also would point to the mensrea for the offence on his part. The Court also observed that the payment made by the petitioner in pursuance to the compromise or as deposited before this Commission in consumer complaint would also not wipe out the offence at this stage. It may also be mentioned here that even the pre-arrest bail application bearing Crl. Misc. NoM-32927 of 2009 moved by Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2010 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that the complainants (decree holders herein) have been dishonestly induced to part with money for which the petitioner (judgment debtor No.2) did not have any intention to repay. Even similar pre-arrest bail application filed by judgment debtor No.3, Sumita Goel, who is still at large, was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.07.2010.
13. In view of above discussion, it is very much clear that the applicant/judgment debtor No.2 (Aashish Goel) has no intention to pay the decretal amount and rather, he is trying to defy the award passed by this Commission and evading his liability under the garb of a compromise deed, qua which, a clear finding has been given by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh that even the said compromise cannot be said to have been finalized. The fact is that as is clear from order dated 26.02.2020, as on 07.02.2020, an amount of Rs.1,24,62,370/- is due in this execution application No.37 of 2011. Similarly, in other two execution applications bearing Nos.35 of 2011 and 36 of 2011, the amounts of Rs.62,37,196/- and Rs.49,48,146/- were due to be paid by the judgment debtors as on 06.02.2020. The judgment debtors have paid only an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs till date. Thus, the liability of the judgment debtors is more than Rs.2 Crores. The offer of petty amount of Rs.10 Lakhs by the Counsel for the applicant/judgment debtor No.2 (Aashish Goel) was a pure attempt to get him out of jail. In our opinion, there was apparently dishonest intention on the part of Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 to defraud the decree holders. Seeing the previous conduct of Sh. Aashish Goel, the possibility of his absconding again cannot be ruled out as at one point of time, when he was brought from Satna, Madhya Pradesh, after his arrest, fled midway. Thus, we have no reason to believe that if Sh. Aashish Goel is kept out of custody, he is not likely to abscond again. His past conduct shows that if he is released on bail, there is possibility of his running way again.
14. For the reasons recorded above, all the three bail applications bearing Nos.822 of 2020, 820 of 2020 and 821 of 2020 filed on behalf of Sh. Aashish Goel, Director of M/s Castle Concrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) for suspension of sentence and release from jail, stand dismissed.
Not only as above, it is evident from order passed dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, that the application bearing no.41951 of 2020 filed by Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.458 dated 23.10.2009 under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, was dismissed while observing that no ground is made out to extend the concession of bail to him.
Similarly, in this application also, Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 has failed to convince this Commission as to why he should be given another opportunity on the same cause of action, to put physical appearance because except old pleas taken in earlier applications which stood dismissed and have attained finality, nothing new has been mentioned in this application also.
In this view of the matter, this application seeking physical appearance of Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 before this Commission stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
However, liberty is granted to the applicant-Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 to submit his written arguments, before this Commission, within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, through Deputy Superintendent Gr.1, Model Jain, Chandigarh.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the non-applicants/decree holders and also to the applicant-Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2, through Deputy Superintendent Gr.1, Model Jain, Chandigarh, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
05.04.2021 Sd/-
[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.