Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The respondents, being members of the Flora Welfare Association, filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, bearing Consumer Case No. 1893/2017 titled Flora Welfare Association Vs. Shree Vardhman Infrahome Pvt. Ltd., before the NCDRC. The said complaint was disposed of by the NCDRC vide decree dated 15 th January, 2019, wherein it was recorded that the matter had been settled between the parties in terms of the written settlement dated 15 th January, 2019, and which written settlement was ordered to form part of the said decree. Since the decree was not satisfied, the respondents filed execution applications under Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking enforcement of the decree dated 15th January, 2019 of the NCDRC as well as penalties to be imposed upon Shree Vardhman Infrahome Private Limited and its directors for non-compliance with the decree dated 15th January, 2019 of the NCDRC, and from which execution proceedings, the impugned order arises.

7. Mr. Shalabh Singhal appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assails the impugned order on the grounds that, (i) the decree dated 15th January, 2019 of the NCDRC has been passed against the company 'Shree Vardhman Infrahome Private Limited' of which the petitioner is only a director; (ii) neither was the petitioner a party to the consumer complaint nor has the decree dated 15th January, 2019 of the NCDRC been passed against the petitioner; (iii) the petitioner was not even arrayed as a party in the execution application; and (iv) there is no provision either under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to make a director liable for the decree passed against the company. Therefore, it is submitted that the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner is not permissible in law and the same should be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already deposited his passport with the Registrar, NCDRC, in compliance with the impugned order.

9. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance notice, fairly states that Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not empower the NCDRC to issue an individual recovery certificate against the director of a company. However, he submits that proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can be initiated against the petitioner in his capacity as a director of the judgment debtor company.

11. This Court is unable to find any provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to make a director liable for the decree passed against the company and such a provision does not exist in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 either. Since, neither was the petitioner a party to the consumer complaint, nor had the decree dated 15thJanuary, 2019 of the NCDRC been passed against the petitioner, and furthermore, the petitioner was not even arrayed as a party in the execution applications, the Executing Court could not go behind the decree in such a manner to execute the decree against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent that the individual recovery certificate has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, is without jurisdiction.