National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Raj Kumar Goyal & Ors vs Rajiv Sethi & Ors. on 3 November, 2014
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
EXECUTION REVISION
PETITION NO. 2 OF 2013
(From the
order dated 18.11.2013 in First Appeal No. 491 of 2013 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1.
RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
S/O
SH. DIWAN CHAND
R/O
H.NO 47,YOUNG DWELLERS SOCIETY, SECTOR 49,
CHANDIGARH
2.
BALKAR SINGH
S/O
SH.KUNDAN SINGH,
RESIDENT
OF H.NO.989,SECTOR 69,
MOHALI
PUNJAB
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.
RAJIV SETHI
S/O
SH. KRISHAN SETHI,
R/O
LOWER SHAM NAGAR,
DHARAMSHALA,
DISTT.
KANGRA,
HIMACHAL
PRADESH
2.
THE NECTAR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
OPERATING
OFFICE AT SCO NO. 208-209, TOP FLOOR, SECTOR 34A, CHANDIGARH,
THROUGH
ITS PRESIDENT SUDEEP SINGH SABHARWAL, RESIDENT OF 1285, SECTOR 34-A,
CHANDIGARH
3.
SMT. KULWINDER KAUR,
CASHIER,
THE NECTAR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. OPERATIONG OFFICE AT SCO
NO.208-209,TOP FLOOR,
SECTOR
34-A,
CHANDIGARH
4.
(A) OFFICAL LIQUIDATOR,
THE
NECTOR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.
C/O
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, PUNJAB, 30 BAYS BUILDING SECTOR ,
17-C,
CHANDIGARH.
(B) OFFICAL LIQUIDATOR
THE
NECTOR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,
C/O
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, RANDHAWA ROAD,
KHARAR 02
...........Respondent(s)
EXECUTION REVISION
PETITION NO. 3 OF 2013
(From the
order dated 18.11.2013 in First Appeal No. 492 of 2013 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1.
RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
S/O
SH. DIWAN CHAND
R/O
H.NO 47,YOUNG DWELLERS SOCIETY, SECTOR 49,
CHANDIGARH
2.
BALKAR SINGH
S/O
SH.KUNDAN SINGH,
RESIDENT
OF H.NO.989,SECTOR 69,
MOHALI
PUNJAB
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.
INDERASWER AGNIHOTRI
S/O
LATE SH. FAQUIR CHAND,
R/O
H.NO. 172, KHAZANCHI MOHALLA,
K.B.
DHARAMSHALA,
DISTT.
KANGRA,
HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
ATTORNEY
HOLDER
NARSHWAR
AGNIHOTRI
2.
THE NECTAR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
OPERATING
OFFICE AT SCO NO. 208-209, TOP FLOOR, SECTOR 34A, CHANDIGARH,
THROUGH
ITS PRESIDENT SUDEEP SINGH SABHARWAL, RESIDENT OF 1285, SECTOR 34-A,
CHANDIGARH
3.
SMT. KULWINDER KAUR,
CASHIER,
THE NECTAR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. OPERATIONG OFFICE AT SCO
NO.208-209,TOP FLOOR,
SECTOR
34-A,
CHANDIGARH
4.
(A) OFFICAL LIQUIDATOR,
THE
NECTOR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.
C/O
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, PUNJAB, 30 BAYS BUILDING SECTOR ,
17-C,
CHANDIGARH.
(B)
OFFICAL LIQUIDATOR
THE
NECTOR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,
C/O
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, RANDHAWA ROAD,
KHARAR 02 ...........Respondent(s)
EXECUTION REVISION
PETITION NO. 4 OF 2013
(From the
order dated 18.11.2013 in First Appeal No. 494 of 2013 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, U.T., Chandigarh)
1.
RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
S/O
SH. DIWAN CHAND
R/O
H.NO 47,YOUNG DWELLERS SOCIETY, SECTOR 49,
CHANDIGARH
2.
BALKAR SINGH
S/O
SH.KUNDAN SINGH,
RESIDENT
OF H.NO.989,SECTOR 69,
MOHALI
PUNJAB
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.
DEVI CHAND CHAUHAN
S/O
SH. RATTAN CHAND,
R/O
9/1, MOHALLA SIDHPUR-2,
TEHSIL
DHARAMSHALA,
DISTT.
KANGRA,
HIMACHAL
PRADESH
2.
THE NECTAR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
OPERATING
OFFICE AT SCO NO. 208-209, TOP FLOOR, SECTOR 34A, CHANDIGARH,
THROUGH
ITS PRESIDENT SUDEEP SINGH SABHARWAL, RESIDENT OF 1285, SECTOR 34-A,
CHANDIGARH
3.
SMT. KULWINDER KAUR,
CASHIER,
THE NECTAR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. OPERATIONG OFFICE AT SCO
NO.208-209,TOP FLOOR,
SECTOR
34-A,
CHANDIGARH
4.
(A) OFFICAL LIQUIDATOR,
THE
NECTOR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.
C/O
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, PUNJAB, 30 BAYS BUILDING SECTOR ,
17-C,
CHANDIGARH.
(B) OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
THE
NECTOR CO-OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,
C/O
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, RANDHAWA ROAD,
KHARAR 02
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING
MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gunjan
Rishi, Advocate
For the Res. No. 1 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bansal, Advocate
For the Res. No. 2 to 4 : Dispensed
with
PRONOUNCED ON 3rd November, 2014
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These Execution Revision Petitions involve similar question of law; hence, decided by common order.
2. These Execution Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 491/2013 Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Rajiv Sethi & 4 Ors., in Appeal No. 492/2013 Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Inderaswer Agnihotri & 4 Ors.
and in Appeal No. 494/2013 Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Devi Chand Chauhan & 4 Ors. by which, while dismissing appeals, order of District Forum directing issuance of warrants of arrest was upheld.
3. Brief facts of the cases are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 filed complaint before District Forum against OPs-Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund deposited amount to the complainant along with interest. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, revision petitions were filed by petitioners before this Commission. This Commission passed following order on 17.8.2012:
Heard.
Issue notice of application for stay to the respondents returnable on 21.11.2012, the date already fixed.
In the meanwhile, operation of impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the District Forum, within four weeks, in each case.
On receipt of the said amount, the District Forum shall put the same in Fixed Deposit Account in a nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year.
4. As petitioners did not deposit 50% of the awarded amount within 4 weeks with the District Forum, District Forum in Execution Petition issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Appeals filed by petitioners were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.
5. Presence of Respondent No. 2 to 4 was dispensed with.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners deposited their share of amount as per orders of this Commission, even then, learned District Forum committed error in issuing warrants of arrest and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
8. Perusal of main order of District Forum reveals that complaint was accepted against all OP No. 1 to 5 and they were directed to refund amount with interest against which, revision petitions are pending before this Commission and this Commission stayed operation of order subject to depositing 50% of the awarded amount with District Forum.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have deposited their 1/5th share with interest; even then, learned District Forum issued warrants of arrest as not deposited 50% of the entire amount whereas, petitioners were not required to deposit 50% of the entire amount awarded by District Forum. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent is entitled to recover full amount from any OP and OP/Petitioners were required to deposit 50% of the entire amount awarded by District Forum.
10. Perusal of main order of District Forum reveals that OPs have not been held responsible jointly & severally and in such circumstances, complainant cannot recover whole awarded amount from any of the OP and he is entitled to recover only 1/5th share of the awarded amount from each of the five OP. In such circumstances, in the light of order of this Commission, petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the amount with interest only to the extent of his share, i.e. 1/5th, which was to be paid by him to the complainant. Learned State Commission erroneously observed that full amount can be recovered from any of the OPs and committed error in dismissing appeal; even though, petitioners had deposited 50% of the amount which was required to be paid by them. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any law in support of his contention that even if OP is not held liable jointly and severally, complainant can recover full amount from any of the OPs. In such circumstances, petitioners were under an obligation to deposit 50% amount only of their liability.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have deposited 1/5th share of their liability with interest, but it appears that they have deposited amount after deducting Rs.25,000/- which they have deposited before State Commission. Amount of Rs.25,000/-, i.e. statutory amount for filing appeal cannot be deducted from the share to be deposited with District Forum for operation of stay order and in such circumstances, petitioners are bound to deposit 1/5th share of their liability without deducting Rs.25,000/- for getting benefit of stay order.
12. Consequently, Execution Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and orders dated 18.11.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 491/2013 Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Rajiv Sethi & 4 Ors., in Appeal No. 492/2013 Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Inderaswer Agnihotri & 4 Ors.
and in Appeal No. 494/2013 Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Devi Chand Chauhan & 4 Ors. and orders of District Forum dated 23.10.2013 are set aside and District Forum is directed to withdraw warrants of arrest issued against petitioners if petitioners deposit remaining amount within two weeks with the District Forum in each case from the date of pronouncement of the order.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k