National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sumesh Chawla vs Sandeep Baweja & Anr. on 18 May, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 41 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 02/06/2020 in Complaint No. 476/2017 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. SUMESH CHAWLA S/O LATE SHRI BRIJ LAL, R/O HOUSE NO.4967, PANCHAM SOCIETY, SECTOR-68, MOHALI, PUNJAB ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SANDEEP BAWEJA & ANR. W/O SHRI S. AMARJEET SINGH BAWEJA,
R/O HOUSE NO.68, KUSUM APARTMENT, GURU HARSAHAI ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 2. M/S CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI TEJINDER PAL SETIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SCO NO.249 (BASEMENT),
SECTOR-44C CHANDIGARH-160007 ...........Respondent(s) APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 7 OF 2022 (Against the Order dated 10/12/2021 in Complaint No. 476/2017 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. SUMESH CHAWLA S/O LATE SHRI BRIJ LAL R/O HOUSE NO.4967,PANCHAM SOCIETY, SECTOR-68,MOHALI,PUNJABI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SANDEEP BAWEJA & 2 ORS. W/O S.AMARJEET SINGH BAWEJA R/O HOUSE NO.68.KUSUM APARTMENT,,GURU HARSHAI ROAD,KOLKATA 2. M/S CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT.LTD SCO O.196-197,TOP FLOOR, SECTOR-34A,CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH -160033 3. MR.TEJINDER PAL SETIA DIRECTOR
M/S CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT.LTD
SCO NO.196-197,TOP FLOOR, SECTOR-34A,CHANDIGARH-160033 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent : For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.2&3: Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocate
Dated : 18 May 2022 ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent-1 and Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocate for respondents-2 & 3, in both the appeals.
2. Appeal Execution No. 41 of 2020 has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 02.06.2020 whereby State Commission has rejected the application of the appellant for recalling the order dated 12.06.2018, holding the appellant as guilty for violating the order and awarding sentence. Appeal Execution No.7 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2021, whereby, the appellant and respondent-3 have been directed to deposit Rs.4609823/- with future interest, in the Execution Application No.476 of 2017. Both these appeals are arising out of the orders passed in CC No.625 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 whereby the appellant and respondent-2 were jointly and severally directed to refund the entire money deposited by respondent-1 with them along with interest as such these were consolidated and heard together. The order dated 08.05.2017 has been challenged in FA No.328 of 2020, which has been dismissed as time barred by order dated 21.10.2020. The appellant challenged the order dated 21.10.2020 in SLP (Civil) No.14188 of 2020, which was disposed of by order dated 16.02.2021. However, interim order was extended till 30.04.2021 giving liberty to the appellant to satisfy the decree in the meantime.
3. Ms. Sandeep Baweja (respondent-1) booked a flat in the project launched by M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-2), in which, Sumesh Chawla (the appellant) was Managing Director. Ms. Sandeep Baweja and M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. entered into agreement dated 28.08.2009, which was signed by Sumesh Chawla in the capacity of Managing Director, whereby they agreed to sell a flat admeasuring 2075 sq.ft., for a sale consideration of Rs.2500000/-. Rs.500000/- were paid on 28.08.2009 and balance sale consideration of Rs.200000/- were paid on 29.08.2009 to Sumesh Chawla, appellant. In spite of full and final payment, M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Sumesh Chawla were not able to hand over the possession to Ms. Sandeep Baweja over the flat allotted to her, within stipulated period. Therefore, she filed CC/625/2016 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh impleading M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Sumesh Chawla as the opposite parties. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing their joint written reply. However, State Commission by order dated 08.05.2017 held that agreement was executed between the parties on 28.08.2009 and full sale consideration was paid up to 29.08.2009. Under the agreement, the possession has to be handed over till 31.12.2010, but the opposite parties could not proceed with the construction nor could offer possession till the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to refund entire amount of Rs.2500000/- along with interest @15% p.a., Rs.1.25 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.33000/- as cost of litigation, within 45 days from the judgment, otherwise the interest would increase @18% p.a. As stated above, the order of the State commission dated 08.05.2017 has attained finality up to Supreme Court.
4. Respondent -1 /Decree Holder filed an application (registered as in Execution Application No. 476 of 2017) for execution of the decree, which was admitted and notices were issued to judgment debtor on 09.01.2018. Respondent-1 also filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Execution Application No.476 of 2017. State Commission after hearing the parties by order dated 12.06.2018 found that the order dated 08.05.2017 has not been complied with, therefore, Sumesh Chawla, the appellant was guilty of wilful disobedience of order dated 08.05.2017, as such, sentence of two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10000/- was awarded against him. Sumesh Chawla (appellant) moved an application before the State Commission for suspension of the sentence dated 12.06.2018, which was rejected by order dated 03.02.2020. Sumesh Chawla filed an application for interim bail, which was rejected on 16.03.2020 by State Commission.
5. Sumesh Chawla filed Appeal Execution No.25 of 2020 against the order dated 12.06.2018 and Appeal Execution No.26 of 2020 against the order dated 03.02.2020 before this Commission. When these appeals came up for hearing before this Commission, then the counsel for the appellant made a statement for dismissing the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to take additional plea before State Commission. Both the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16.03.2020 with liberty to the appellant to move an application before State Commission as desired by the counsel for the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application (registered as MA/267/2020) before State Commission on 18.03.2020. State Commission dismissed the application by order dated 20.03.2020 holding that it has no jurisdiction to review its order. The appellant filed CWP No.7451 of 2020 before High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was got dismissed with liberty to challenge the order before the National Commission. The appellant then filed Appeal Execution No.41 of 2020 challenging the orders dated 09.01.2018, 12.06.2018, and 02.06.2020 passed in Execution Application No.476 of 2017 arising out of order passed in CC No.625 of 2016.
6. In the meantime, the appellant filed MA No.868 of 2020 for impleading Tejinder Pal Setia, (respondent-3) in EA/476/2017. The State Commission by order dated 27.10.2020 impleaded Tejinder Pal Setia as opposite party in EA/476/ 2017. Tejinder Pal Setia filed MA No.796 of 2020 for recalling the order dated 27.10.2020. State Commission by order dated 17.02.2021 held that as Sumesh Chawla by definite agreement dated 15.10.2014 has transferred the company M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Private Ltd. to Tejinder Pal Setia, therefore, he was rightly impleaded as opposite party in the execution case. The State Commission by a subsequent order dated 10.12.2021 directed Sumesh Chawla and Tejinder Pal Setia to make payment of remaining decretal amount of Rs.4609823/- with interest till 08.07.2021. The appellant has challenged the order dated 10.12.2021 in Appeal Execution No.7 of 2022.
7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The order dated 08.05.2017 has attained finality up to Supreme Court, therefore, the appellant and respondents-2 and 3 are bound to comply with the order dated 08.05.2017. In the complaint originally M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Private Ltd. (respondent-2) and Sumesh Chawla (the appellant) were opposite parties and order dated 08.05.2017 was passed against them. Tejinder Pal Setia (respondent-1), is present Director of M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., as such, the appellant and respondents-2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund and satisfy the decree dated 08.05.2017.
8. The arguments of the appellant that the entire company M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Private Ltd. has been transferred to Tejinder Pal Setia, (respondent-3) on 15.10.2014, as such he alone is liable to satisfy the decree cannot be accepted. Entire money has been collected by the appellant from respondent-1. The parties have also entered into an agreement dated 05.04.2021, in this respect. On these grounds, the appellant cannot be absolved from his liability to satisfy the decree dated 08.05.2017. State Commission in the impugned order has recorded a finding that Rs.4609823/- remained due till 08.07.2021 as such the order directing the appellant and Tejinder Pal Setia (respondent-3) to deposit that amount, does not suffer from any illegality.
9. So far as Appeal Execution No.41 of 2020 is concerned, the appellant has raised plea that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the appellant before the State Commission. It may be mentioned that the provision of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in the nature of civil contempt and under Section 27 (3) of the Act is liable to be tried summarily. Section 317 Cr.P.C. provides for dispensing with attendance of the accused. In the present case, the appellant was appearing through counsel before the State Commission throughout, as such, the proceeding cannot be held to be nullity or suffer from any illegality. The decree dated 08.05.2017 is being still unsatisfied as such the appellant is not liable to any leniency.
ORDER
In the result, the Appeal Execution No.41 of 2020 & Appeal Execution No.7 of 2022 have no merit and are dismissed.
......................J RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA PRESIDING MEMBER