Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.02 seconds)
1. Raj Kumar Goyal vs 1. Rajiv Sethi on 18 November, 2013 cites

Raj Kumar Goyal vs Rajiv Sethi on 1 May, 2012

16.   When a third party deposits the amount, with the builder or a Company, through its various office bearers, then the Company and the Officer bearers are liable to refund the amount, to the third party, in case of deficiency, in rendering service. Once the order of refund is made, the complainant may recover the entire amount, from one office bearer, or all the office bearers. No office bearer, once an order is passed, can say that he was only liable to pay his share, by bifurcating the liability of his own. The interse liability of the office bearers is their concern, but the third party cannot suffer at their hands. The District Forum was, thus, right, in holding that the Appellants/Judgment Debtors No.3 and 5/ Opposite Parties No.3 and 5, were required to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, as directed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, and since they failed to comply with the same, Opposite Party No.5 upon whom the Show Cause notice was served, was directed to file reply on 01.11.2013, whereas the remaining Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, were ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants, for that date. Since the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was not fully complied with, by the appellants/ Judgment Debtors No.3 and 5/Opposite Parties No.3 and 5, the District Forum was also right, in passing the order dated 23.10.2013, referred to above.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1