Back
2008(4) CPR 37 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
Liquidator Bhudargad Nagari
Patsantha Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Pratap Ramro Ingle and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2499 of 2008
Decided on 7.8.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitender Uttarichand, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act cannot be initiated against liquidator.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986— Section 27—Proceeding under for execution of an order cannot be initiated against liquidator—Petitioner liquidator was directed by State Commission to distribute certain sum amongst secured and unsecured creditors in a particular ratio—Apprehension of liquidator that proceedings under Section 27 of the Act could be initiated against him were misconceived. (Para 2)
Result: Revision dismissed.
K.S. Gupta, Member—Operative portion of the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai which is under challenge in this revision reads thus:
“1. Revision petition is allowed.
2. Liquidator is directed to distribute sum of Rs. 15,00,000 amongst the secured and unsecured creditors of the Bhudargad Nagan Pat Sanstha Maryadit in ratio of 60-40% because the depositors, who have gone to the Consumer Forums have already spent some amount on litigation Therefore, they are entitled to get 60%
3. The liquidator is directed to give priority to the claims put forth by the patient of cancer, heart ailment and renal failure. If this direction is contrary to the directions given by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the High Court directions shall prevail.
4. Misc application. No 1358/2007, which is for stay stands disposed of
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.”
2. Submission advanced by Shri Jitender Uttarichand for the petitioner is that the liquidator has no objection to the implementing of the said order of State Commission but he apprehends that under the garb of this order petitions may be filed for initiating proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against him. Bare reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 27 would show that the penalty there under can be levied only against the trader or a person against whom the complaint was made or the complainant who fail or omit to comply with any order passed by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission, as the case may be. Proceedings thus cannot be initiated against the liquidator as he is neither the trader or a person against whom complaint was made or the complainant against whom award which is sought to be enforced was made. With this observation the revision petition is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.
*******
