SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1264

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
H.K. Singla – Appellant
Versus
Avtar Singh Saini & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11969 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.17357 of 2013] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11970-11972 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.17360-17362 of 2013] A N D CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11973-11974 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.17358-17359 of 2013]
Decided On : 14-12-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
For default committed by the society no order for imprisonment can be ordered against the Secretary.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27 – Appellant shown as Secretary of Cooperative Society – No order passed against appellant in his individual capacity – District Forum sentencing appellant u/s 27 – For default committed by the society no order for imprisonment can be ordered against the appellant. (Para 9)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant herein was Secretary of Chandigarh State Bank of Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit Society which is under liquidation. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Forum and the society was directed to pay the maturity amount along with the interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the award of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5000/- by way of costs. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and the said order has become final.

       Alleging that the society has not paid the maturity amount along with the interest as ordered by the District Forum, the first respondent herein has approched the Distrct Forum by way of application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum sentenced the appellant herein to two years’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-. It was further ordered that in case of failure to deposit the fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

       The appellant herein has preferred appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed interim orders, subject to condition of depositing the entire amount as ordered by the District Forum within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order.

       The appeals were dismissed by the National Commisssion.

       Finding of the Court:

       For default committed by the society no order for imprisonment can be ordered against the appellant.

       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. These appeals are filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in First Appeal Nos.652/12; 653/12; 654-656/12; 657/12 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. For the sake convenience and brevity, the facts of the appeal preferred against Appeal No.657/12 are being referred to. The said appeal is preferred against the order passed by the State Commission by way of interim order pending the appeal. These appeals were filed in the year 2013. At first instance, this Court has passed orders granting stay of arrest of the appellant herein on 22.03.2013 and the said order continued from time to time.

2. The appellant herein was Secretary of Chandigarh State Bank of Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit Society. We are informed that the said society is in liquidation and a liquidator is appointed. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Forum and the society was directed to pay the maturity amount along with the interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the award of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5000/- by way of costs. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, it appears that the society has preferred appeal before the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was upheld and appeal was dismissed by imposing the costs of Rs.5000/-and the said order of the appellate forum has become final.

3. Alleging that the society has not paid the maturity amount along with the interest as ordered by the District Forum, the first respondent herein has approched the Distrct Forum by way of application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum sentenced the appellant herein to two years’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-. It was further ordered that in case of failure to deposit the fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appellant herein has preferred appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed interim orders, subject to condition of depositing the entire amount as ordered by the District Forum within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, at first instance the society has filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission and the said Revision Petition was subsequently withdrawn by seeking liberty to file the appeal. After withdrawal of the Revision Petition, the appeals were filed and the said appeals were dismissed by common order dated 08.11.2012. The operative portion of the order passed by the National Commission reads as under:

“Appellant had shown his inability to pay the decretal amount. Under the circumstances, the District Forum convicted the appellant and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment of two years. Appellant filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission by an interim order stayed operation of the order of the District Forum subject to deposit of the entire decreetal amount. We do not find any infirmity in the interim order passed by the State Commission. The decree passed against the appellant attained finality. Under the circumstances, District Forum under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had no other option other than to convict the appellant. The State Commission has rightly stayed the operation of the impugned order subject to deposit of the entire decretal amount. Dismissed.”

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the first respondent and perused the counter affidavit and rejoinder and other material placed on record.

7. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 empowers the District Forum, State Commission, National Commission to impose the penalties. It empowers the authorities to pass an order to punish a person with impri





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top