w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited & Another v/s Sona Sharma


Company & Directors' Information:- CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100CH2004PTC027052

Company & Directors' Information:- SONA (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010124

Company & Directors' Information:- J R SHARMA OVERSEAS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PLC034628

Company & Directors' Information:- SONA CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL1980PTC010619

Company & Directors' Information:- SONA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U63040TN1989PTC018379

    First Appeal No. 507 of 2013

    Decided On, 16 December 2013

    At, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. DEV RAJ
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellants: Ashish Naik, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vikas Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:

1. This appeal, under Section 27A, is directed against the order dated 14.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Criminal Petition No.73 of 2013, in Consumer Complaint No.189 of 2011, was allowed, and Sh.Sumesh Chawla, Managing Director/Chairman of Opposite Party No.1, was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. It was also directed that, in default of payment of fine, by Sh.Sumesh Chawla, Managing Director/Chairman of Opposite Party No.1, he shall further undergo imprisonment, for a period of six months, which would not run concurrent to the sentence of two years, aforesaid.

2. Non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the Managing Director/Chairman of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, for 05.11.2013, for his arrest, and detention in jail, to undergo the imprisonment, awarded to him.

3. The complainant filed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.189 of 2011, against the Opposite Parties, claiming various reliefs. On the statement made by the Opposite Parties, with regard to amicable settlement, the said Consumer complaint was disposed of in Lok Adalat, vide order dated 07.08.2012, and the Opposite Parties were directed as under;

'In view of the statements made by the parties, it is ordered that OPs shall refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.4,75,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the dates of respective deposits, in full and final settlement, in two installments, within four months in total from today, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the above said amount alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the respective deposits till the payment is made

Hence, the complaint is disposed of accordingly'.

4. Since, the order dated 07.08.2012, passed by the District Forum, in Consumer Complaint No.189 of 2011, was not complied with, by the Opposite Parties, Criminal Petition No.73 of 2013, under Section 27 of the Act, for enforcement of the same, was filed by the Decree Holder/complainant.

5. Notice of the Criminal Petition, was issued to the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, calling upon him to show cause, as to why, the Petition be not tried, in a summary manner, and punishment be not awarded, for non compliance of the order dated 07.08.2012.

6. The Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, was duly served, but none put, in appearance, on his behalf, as a result whereof, he was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, for 23.09.2013. The Execution Application/ Criminal Petition was accordingly adjourned to 23.09.2013, for compliance of the order dated 07.08.2012. On 23.09.2013, bailable warrants sent for the arrest of the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, were received back unexecuted, with the report 'the Managing Director is out of Station'. Fresh bailable warrants, to procure the presence of the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, through the Senior Superintendent of Police, were also ordered to be issued, for 14.10.2013. On 14.10.2013, when again none put in appearance, on behalf of Sh.Sumesh Chawla, Managing Director/Chairman of Opposite Party No.2, despite sending the bailable warrants, a number of times, to his correct address, the District Forum passed the order impugned, in the manner, referred to, in the opening paragraph of the instant order.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, under Section 27-A of the Act, has been filed by the appellants/ Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties.

8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, submitted that, no doubt, the order dated 07.08.2012, passed by the District Forum, in the Consumer Complaint bearing No.189 of 2011, could not be complied with, by the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, within the time stipulated therein, as a result whereof, Execution Application No.73 of 2013, under Section 27 of the Act, was filed, by the complainant/Decree Holder, wherein the impugned order dated 14.10.2013, was passed by it. He further submitted that, however, on 16.11.2013, the order dated 07.08.2012, referred to above, was complied with, by the appellants/ Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, in full satisfaction of the respondent/Decree Holder/complainant, by handing over chqeue no.640742 of the even date, in the sum of Rs.14 lacs.. He further submitted that the complainant also furnished a duly sworn affidavit dated 21.11.2013 Annexure A-4, vide which, she stated that she had received the amount in full and final settlement, and had no objection, if the Execution Application/Criminal Petition was dismissed. He further submitted that there was no intention, on the part of the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, to defy the order of the District Forum, deliberately.

10. On the other hand, the respondent/Decree Holder/complainant, admitted the correctness of the affidavit dated 21.11.2013 Annexure A-4, bearing her signatures, in photo-impression, duly attested by the Notary. Sh. Vikas Kumar, Counsel for the respondent made a statement dated 16.12.2013, before this Commission, wherein, it was admitted by him that the full and final payment, from the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, had been received by her, and now there remained no dispute, between the parties, and the appeal may be decided accordingly.

11. The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum, adopted the correct procedure, in accordance with law, before passing the order of sentence, against the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties or not? It may be stated here, that originally the complaint was disposed of by the District Forum, after amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties, and vide its order dated 07.08.2012, the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, were directed to pay the amount alongwith interest, mentioned therein. The appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, did not comply with the order of the District Forum, despite offering them sufficient opportunity. When the Execution Application/Criminal Petition was filed, for enforcement of the order dated 07.08.2012, notice of the same (Criminal Petition) was issued to the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, calling upon him, to show cause, as to why, the Petition be not tried in a summary manner and punishment be not awarded for non-compliance of the same. The service of the notice, under Section 27 of the Act, as also bailable warrants issued for procuring the presence of the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, were intentionally avoided by him. Thus, the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, failed to comply with the order. The summary procedure was only required to be adopted, by the District Forum, while deciding the Execution Application/Criminal Petition, for awarding sentence, as also fine, to the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, due compliance of the principles of natural justice, was made. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the procedure adopted by the District Forum, in awarding sentence, as also fine, was, in any way, illegal.

12. The entire amount, including interest, has already been paid, by the appellants/Judgment Debtors/ Opposite Parties, as has been admitted by the Counsel for the Decree Holder, in his statement, made before this Commission, on 16.12.2013. The object of the Act, is only to ensure the compliance of the orders, passed by the Consumer Foras. Its object is not to punish the persons, who have complied with the order, though belatedly. Since, the entire amount, as awarded by the District Forum, vide order dated 07.08

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

.2012, has already been paid, by the appellants/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose, shall be served, by sending the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, to jail. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice, would be adequately met, if the impugned order is set aside. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 14.10.2013, is set aside. Non-Bailable Warrants, issued against the Managing Director/Chairman of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Sumesh Chawla, in Criminal Petition No.73 of 2013, are ordered to be recalled back, unexecuted, immediately. The District Forum concerned be intimated at once. 14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
O R