State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.B. Shrarma vs Panna Lal Singh on 7 May, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.) Date of decision :07.05.2008 1.
Appeal No. FA-08/248 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Panna Lal Singh, 64-D, Pocket-I, DDA MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi 110096
2. Appeal No. FA-08/249 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Latika Sharma, G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P.
3. Appeal No. FA-08/250 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Ramesh Kumari Sharma, G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P.
4. Appeal No. FA-08/251 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Lt. Puneet Sharma, G-73, Sector 25, Noida, UP.
5. Appeal No. FA-08/252 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana).
Versus Sh. N.S. Matharhoo, M-240, Sector 25 Noida, UP.
6. Appeal No. FA-08/253 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Mrs. Rakesh Devi Devgan, G-73, Sector 25, Noida, UP.
7. Appeal No. FA-08/254 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Jeewan Mittal, 3998, Naya Bazar, Delhi 110006
8. Appeal No. FA-08/255 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Lt. Col. M.P. Kohli, 479, Sector-37, Noida-201303, UP.
9. Appeal No. FA-08/256 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Lt. Col. H.S. Bindra, 14/39A, Tilak Nagar, Delhi 110018
10. Appeal No. FA-08/257 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Rahul Deep Singh, M-240, Sector-25, Noida 201201, UP.
11. Appeal No. FA-08/258 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Panna Lal Singh, 64-D, Pocket-I, DDA MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi 110096
12. Appeal No. FA-08/259 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Ranjit Singh, 64-D, Pocket-I, DDA MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi 110096
13. Appeal No. FA-08/260 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Wg. Cdr. S.P. Sharam (Retd), G-73, Sector-25, Noida, UP.
14. Appeal No. FA-08/261 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Lt. Col. M.P. Kohli, 479, Sector 37, Noida, UP.
15. Appeal No. FA-08/262 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. K.K. Tyagi, C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad-201011
16. Appeal No. FA-08/263 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh.Medhwa Raja, C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.
17. Appeal No. FA-08/264 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj. Gen. Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
18. Appeal No. FA-08/265 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj. Gen. Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
19. Appeal No. FA-08/266 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj. Gen. Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
20. Appeal No. FA-08/267 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj. Gen. Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
21. Appeal No. FA-08/268 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Ms. Inderjit Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
22. Appeal No. FA-08/269 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Ms. Inderjit Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
23. Appeal No. FA-08/270 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Mrs. Inderjit Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
24. Appeal No. FA-08/271 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Mrs. Inderjit Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
25. Appeal No. FA-08/272 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Ms. Harsimran Kaur Gujral, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
26. Appeal No. FA-08/273 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Ms. Harsimran Kaur Gujral, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
27. Appeal No. FA-08/274 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Santosh Garg, 193, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi
28. Appeal No. FA-08/275 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Vijay Pal, 193, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi
29. Appeal No. FA-08/276 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Arun Kaushik , C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
30. Appeal No. FA-08/277 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh.Arvind Kumar Batra, American Embassy, Shantipath, Chankaya Puri, New Delhi -110021
31. Appeal No. FA-08/278 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Santosh Rostogi, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
32. Appeal No. FA-08/279 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Anand Swaroop Rastogi, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
33. Appeal No. FA-08/280 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. Ritu Chawla, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
34. Appeal No. FA-08/281 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Santosh Rastogi, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
35. Appeal No. FA-08/282 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Santosh Rastogi, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
36. Appeal No. FA-08/283 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Mrs. Promila Nagia, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
37. Appeal No. FA-08/284 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Prabha Rastogi, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
38. Appeal No. FA-08/285 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Nandita Chawla, A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
39. Appeal No. FA-08/286 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj. Gen. D.S. Rastogi , A-202, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
40. Appeal No. FA-08/287 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sanjay Kaushal, 193, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi
41. Appeal No. FA-08/288 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Yash Pal, 193, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi
42. Appeal No. FA-08/289 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Ritu Garg, 193, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi
43. Appeal No. FA-08/290 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Vijay Pal, 193, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi
44. Appeal No. FA-08/291 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj.Gen. Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
45. Appeal No. FA-08/292 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Mrs. Inderjit Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
46. Appeal No. FA-08/293 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Jeewan Mittal, 3998, Naya Bazar, Delhi -110006
47. Appeal No. FA-08/294 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Mrs. A.K. Verma, I-125, Narayana Vihar, New Delhi
48. Appeal No. FA-08/295 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Sh. P.P. Verma, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
49. Appeal No. FA-08/296 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Col. H.B. Singh, , 226, Sector-29, Noida, UP
50. Appeal No. FA-08/297 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Maj.Genral Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
51. Appeal No. FA-08/298 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Mrs. Inderjit Ranjit Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
52. Appeal No. FA-08/299 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Dinesh Shankar Pathak, E-270-B, Sector-22, Noida, UP
53. Appeal No. FA-08/300 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus O.P. Narang, 492, Sector 37, Noida, Delhi
54. Appeal No. FA-08/301 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus Arvind Kumar Batra, AG-1/134-C, Vikas Puri, New Delhi
55. Appeal No. FA-08/302 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus K.S. Kumaresan, A/706, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi
56. Appeal No. FA-08/303 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus K.S. Thilagalvathi, A/706, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi
57. Appeal No. FA-08/304 Sh. B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) Versus K.S. Thilagalvathi, A/706, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi (All the appeals arising from order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi, in Compliant case Nos. C-700/05 to 706/05, C-712/05, C-714 to 719/C, C-721-722/05, C-806 to C-819/05, C-1007 to 1010/05, C-298 to C-308/06, C-385-386/06, C-619 to 622/06, C-671-672/06, C-793-94/06, C-193 to 195/07) Appellant -
Through Sh. Arun Srivatava Respondents -
In person
58. Appeal No. FA-08/335 Sh. A.K. Verma, I-125, Narayana Vihar, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
59. Appeal No. FA-08/336 Sh. P.P. Verma, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
60. Appeal No. FA-08/337 Medhavee Raja, C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.
Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
61. Appeal No. FA-08/338 K.K. Tyagi, C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad-201011 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
62. Appeal No. FA-08/339 Anumpam tyagi, C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad-201011 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
63. Appeal No. FA-08/340 Arun Kaushik , C-44, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad-201011 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
64. Appeal No. FA-08/341 Maj. Gen. (Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
65. Appeal No. FA-08/242 Maj. Gen. (Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
66. Appeal No. FA-08/343 Maj. Gen. (Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
67. Appeal No. FA-08/344 Maj. Gen. (Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
68. Appeal No. FA-08/345 Mrs. Inderjit Ranjeet Singh , B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
69. Appeal No. FA-08/346 Mrs. Inderjit Ranjeet Singh,B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
70. Appeal No. FA-08/347 Mrs. Inderjit Ranjeet Singh , B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
71. Appeal No. FA-08/348 Mrs. Inderjit Ranjeet Singh , B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
72. Appeal No. FA-08/349 Harsimran Guru Gujral , B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
73. Appeal No. FA-08/350 Harsimran Guru Gujral , B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
74. Appeal No. FA-08/351 Maj. Gen( Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
75. Appeal No. FA-08/352 Mrs. Inderjit Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
76. Appeal No. FA-08/353 Maj. Gen( Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
77. Appeal No. FA-08/354 Mrs. Inderjit Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi .
Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
78. Appeal No. FA-08/356 Jeewan Mittal , 3998, Naya Bazar, Delhi -6 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
79. Appeal No. FA-08/357 Jeewan Mittal , 3998, Naya Bazar, Delhi -6 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
80. Appeal No. FA-08/365 Latika Sharma, , G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
81. Appeal No. FA-08/366 Ramesh Kumari Sharma, G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
82. Appeal No. FA-08/367 Puneet Sharma , G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
83. Appeal No. FA-08/368 Raksha Devi Devgun , G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
84. Appeal No. FA-08/369 Sh. S.P. Sharma, G-73, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
85. Appeal No. FA-08/370 Sh. Panna Lal Singh, 64-D, Pocket-I, DDA MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi 110096 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
86. Appeal No. FA-08/371 Sh. Panna Lal Singh, 64-D, Pocket-I, DDA MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi 110096 Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
87. Appeal No. FA-08/372 Maj. Gen( Retd) Ranjeet Singh, B-5/105, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
88. Appeal No. FA-08/373 N.S. Mathroo, M-240, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
89. Appeal No. FA-08/374 Rahul Deep Singh, M-240, Sector 25, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
90. Appeal No. FA-08/387 M.P. Kohli , 479, Sector 37, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana)
91. Appeal No. FA-08/388 M.P. Kohli, 479, Sector 37, Noida, U.P. Versus B.B. Shrarma, S/o Late S.P. Sharma,R/o 57/2, Moti Lal Street, Thaneshar City, Kurukshetra, (Haryana) (All the above appeals arising from order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi, in Compliant case Nos. C-700/05 to 706/05, C-712/05, C-714 to 719/C, C-721-722/05, C-806 to C-819/05, C-1007 to 1010/05, C-298 to C-308/06, C-385-386/06, C-619 to 622/06, C-671-672/06, C-793-94/06, C-193 to 195/07) Appellants -
In person Respondent - Through Sh. Arun Srivatava CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member 1 Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgement.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. All the above appeals are being taken up at the admission stage.
2. For the convenience sake, hereinafter the complainants before the District Forum shall be referred as Decree Holder (DH) and the Opposite Party before the District Forum shall be referred as Judgement Debtors (JD) as both the parties have filed appeal against common order.
3. All the above appeals arise from the impugned order dated 19th February, 2008 whereby Sh. B.B. Sharma, JD has been awarded sentence of three months simple imprisonment in each case running consecutively. DHs are aggrieved of the sentence of only three months whereas the JD is aggrieved of the quantum of sentence which will run consecutively.
4. This is a case of non-payment of amount due to the DHs mentioned on the maturity of the Fixed Deposits with the JD Sh. B.B. Sharma who was directed to make payments in favour of the DHs.
5. There is no dispute that the District Forum had passed the orders against Sh. B.B. Sharma, JD directing him to make the payment to all the DHs as per amount of FDs. On his failure to comply with the said orders, DH moved an application under section 27 of the C.P.Act . Pursuant to these proceedings bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the JD to show cause as to why action under section 27 of the C.P. Act be not taken up against him. On three occasions JD appeared before the District Forum and moved an application spelling out the scheme of payment. However his application was rejected vide order dated Ist September 2006 passed by the District Forum. JD filed appeal before this Commission against the said order. Vide order dated 15th November, 2006 this Commission observed that impugned order passed by the District Forum needs to be kept in abeyance for three months during which the Counsel for the JD undertakes to compensate the DHs partly if not as to the full amount.
6. In such type of cases where the companies have been wound up or declared sick, our endeavor has always been to see that the poor consumers are paid at least principal amount or part of the principal amount if not the interest. At the same time, the District Forum was directed to ensure that the payment of some amount to DHs by the JD is made with the liberty to initiate proceedings after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the above said order.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that JD made part payment to three/ four of the DHs on 16.11.2006 by handing over four cheques through his counsel Sh. Arun Srivastava, who continued seeking time to make further payments to all other DHs till 11.12.2006 . Consequently a notice under section 27 of the C.P. Act was given to the JD through his counsel Sh. Srivastava who pleaded not guilty and sought time to file written reply which was filed on 5.11.2007. In reply JD submitted that the order under execution is primarily against M/s Hoffland Finance Ltd. because the complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act was filed against the Company, not against him individually and further that the DHs have filed execution directly u/s 27 without first resorting to the provision of Section 25 of the Act and that the final winding up proceedings against the JD-Company are pending and Official Liquidator had been appointed by the Honble High Court of Delhi as far back as on 3.4.2003 and any legal proceedings against the Company are barred under section 446 of the Companies Act and moreover Sh. B.B. Sharma, JD has been restrained from transferring or alienating any assets belonging to the J/D Company. It was also pleaded that before holding any person guilty for an offence under section 27 of C.P. Act, it is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused has willfully failed or omitted compliance of the order of the Forum and since JD is not in a position to comply with the orders due to his inability in view of the restraint order of the Honble High Court and on account of various criminal cases pending against him, section 27 should not be invoked as it is not meant for recovery of money .
8. On the scope of section 27 we have time and again observed that this is a penal provision on the parameters of Section 2 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court which prescribes punishment for disobedience of the order passed by any court. Provision of Contempt of Court Act are as under:-
2(a) Contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b)Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Section 12 provides as under:-
12. Punishment for contempt of court.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
9. Section 27 provides as under:
27. Penalties.- [(1)] Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made [or the complainant] fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person [or complainant] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month by which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the district Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
10. In the above context Section 25 of C.P. Act also needs to be reproduced which is as under:
25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.- (1) Where an interim order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
11. The bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 27 shows that the penalty provided under sub section
(i) is in the form of punishment for disobedience of any order made by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be and is on the same parameter as the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
12. Words fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission have the same tenor as the words disobedience of the order mentioned in section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act whereas Section 12 has the same scope as penalty under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act has.
13. Penal provision by way of Section 27 of the Act has been introduced to enforce any order made by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission and its non-compliance has the same effect as disobedience of the order passed by the Court.
14. The word any order encompasses in its fold any kind of order made by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission against a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made u/s 12 or even against the complainant. Such an order need not be final order passed under Section 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act which is made after conclusion of the proceedings u/s 13 of the Act. It includes even the interim order as referred in sub-section (3B) of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act for doing any of the things mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (hc) of clause (1) of Section 14 i.e. removing the defect, for replacing the goods with new goods, for returning the price, for paying an amount as compensation, for removing deficiency in service, for discontinuing unfair trade practice etc. etc.
15. Thus the scope of sub-section (1) of section 27 is limited to the extent that a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or even the complainant, can be sentenced to imprisonment or fine or both if he fails or omits to comply with any order irrespective of its being interim order made by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
16. Thus to assume that a separate trial like trial for a criminal offence is to be undertaken before awarding punishment of imprisonment or fine as envisaged by sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Act, is entirely erroneous concept and is highly far-fetched and unacceptable. So far as sub-section (3) of Section 27 is concerned, the offences referred therein are offences of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, sale and manufacture of defective goods, restrictive trade practice etc. These offences are triable summarily as per procedure laid down in section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. A complaint for any or all of these offences is made u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and after its admission; the proceedings are conducted u/s 13 of the Act. Besides these, the only other offence for which summary trial is contemplated is the offence of failure or omission to comply with any order passed by the District Forum, State or National Commission, as the case may be.
17. Thus if we treat the failure or omission to comply with any order against a trader or a person against whom complaint is made or even the complainant as an offence as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 27 the same can be tried summarily by giving him the show-cause notice as to why penalty u/s 27 of the Act be not imposed.
18. Sentence of imprisonment or fine or both awarded u/s 27 is a one time exercise in the form of a penalty to a trader or a person against whom complaint is made or even against the complainant if he fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
19. It is for the purpose of awarding sentence of imprisonment or fine or both that the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission have been conferred with the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the first class under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as power of judicial magistrate to award sentence of imprisonment or fine emanates from the Code of Criminal Procedure besides powers to enforce the presence of the delinquent to receive such a sentence.
20. Merely because a trader or a person or the complainant against whom any order is made has been punished with imprisonment or fine or both u/s 27 of the Act, it does not mean that such a person is absolved of paying any amount as ordered by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be. Procedure for recovery of any amount which is due from any person under an order made by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be has been prescribed by sub-section (3) of section 25 which is independent of penalty prescribed under section 27 of the Act.
21. As the bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act shows the interim order made under the Act can be enforced by ordering the attachment of the property of the person not complying with the order and sub- section (2) provides that any attachment made under sub-section (1) cannot remain in force more than three months, at the end of which if the non-compliance continues the property attached may be sold and out of proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant. This interim order referred under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act is an order other than the order where any amount may be due from any person. In any way this provision provides civil penalty for non-compliance of the interim order as the continuation of non-compliance for more than three months entitles the complainant to damages.
22. So far as sub-section (3) of Section 25 is concerned, it does not refer to the interim order as referred in sub-section (1). It relates to an order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in respect of an amount that may be due from any person. The person entitled to such an amount has a right to make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be on which it may issue certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the District and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
23. Sub-Section (3) of Section 25 does not necessarily mean that amounts should be due from the trader or a person against whom complaint is made. Such an amount under the order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be due from any person and that is why the words any person referred in sub-section (3) of Section 25 assume significance and do not restrict to the trader or the complainant only.
24. In order to invoke the provisions of section 27 of C.P. Act, the District Forum has to see whether a trader or persons against whom complaint is made or for that purpose the complainant fails or omit to comply any order made by it such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but may extend to ten thousand rupees , or with both.
25. There are as many as 57 cases in which JD has been awarded three months simple imprisonment in each case which will run consecutively. Punishment or sentence awarded under section 27 of the C.P. Act does not ensure the payment or recovery of dues. Invoking provisions of under section 25 of the C.P. Act can be to enforce recovery of dues. Section 27 is only the penal provision prescribing sentence of even fine only for failure or omission to comply with any orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or for that matter by the National Commission. The discretion exercised by the District Forum in these cases does not call for any interference as by awarding more sentence the payment or the recovery may not be ensured because of JD-Company having been wound up and the Liquidator having been appointed by the High Court.
26. It is impressed upon the District Forum not to issue warrants at first instance as the sentence of fine only can be imposed if a person fails to refuse, to say appear in pursuance to a summon from the Court to show cause and it is only if he fails to do so that bailable warrants can be issued.
27. Foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the above appeals filed by the JD and DHs, being devoid of merit.
28. District Forum shall ensure that JD serves the sentence as awarded by the District Forum.
29. JD shall surrender before the District Forum for serving sentence.
30. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
31. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
32. Announced on the 7th May, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member rk