Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Dara Estates Private Limited and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Manbir Kaur and Anr. – Respondents
Appeal Execution No.31 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 26/02/2021 in Complaint No.88/2020 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 5.4.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
“Judgment-debtors have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution.”

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 73 and 72 : [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 27-A and 27] – Appeal – Execution – Non-bailable warrants against appellants-judgment-debtors issued – Legality of – Appellants had already entered into a settlement with respondent-decree holders for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to decree holders and balance Rs. 9 lakhs will be paid in nine equal instalments – Appellant himself admitted that NBW has been issued due to non-appearance of judgment debtor No.2 – State Commission issued NBW afresh for the very same reason to secure the presence of judgment debtor No.2 – Appellant have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution – No illegality found in the impugned order.
Held: The Appellants and carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Judgment Debtors submitted that on 12.01.2021 the Appellants/Opposite Parties had already entered into a settlement with the Respondents/Decree Holders for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to the Decree Holders and balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs will be paid in nine equal instalments. Learned Counsel states that the Appellants/Judgment Debtors have never appeared before the State Commission. He submitted that they could not appear in person before the State Commission due to Covid-19.
The submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Appellants relates to the merits of the case, which is the jurisdiction of the Executing Court. The Appellant himself admits NBW has been issued due to non-appearance of Judgment Debtor No.2. The State Commission has issued NBW for the very same reason to secure the presence of Judgment Debtor No.2, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2021. Appellants have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, warranting interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. (Paras 4 and 5)
Result: Appeal Dismissed.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—This Appeal Execution is directed against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 26.02.2021 in Execution Application No.88 of 2020 in Consumer Complaint No.804 of 2018, whereby the State Commission issued fresh non-bailable warrants against the Appellants/Judgment Debtors.

2. State Commission, vide order dated 15.07.2019, passed in CC/804/2018 directed the Appellants/Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Complainants with 12% interest alongwith cost of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. Since the Appellants/Opposite Parties failed to comply with the order dated 15.07.2019, the Complainants/Decree Holders filed Execution Petition before the State Commission. In the Execution Petition, on 26.02.2021, the State Commission passed the following order: -

“As per report of the Registry, power of attorney has not been filed by learned counsel for JD No.2. Be filed in the Registry on or before the adjourned date.

As per report of the Registry, correct address of JD No.1 has not been filed by the DH. Be filed in the Registry before the adjourned date.

As per report of the Registry, in view of order dated 27.11.2020 non-bailable warrants issued against JD No.2 to SSP, Mohali on 03.12.2020 now has been received back unserved.

As per report of the Registry, non-bailable warrants issued against JD No.2 to SSP, Mohali on 15.01.2021 has not been received back executed or unexecuted.

Fresh non-bailable warrant be issued against JD No.2 to SSP, Mohali for 16.04.2021.”

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellants/Judgment Debtors have filed the instant Appeal.

4. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants and carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Judgment Debtors submitted that on 12.01.2021 the Appellants/Opposite Parties had already entered into a settlement with the Respondents/Decree Holders for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to the Decree Holders and balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs will be paid in nine equal instalments. Learned Counsel states that the Appellants/Judgment Debtors have never appeared before the State Commission. He submitted that they could not appear in person before the State Commission due to Covid-19.

5. The submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Appellants relates to the merits of the case, which is the jurisdiction of the Executing Court. The Appellant himself admits NBW has been issued due to non-appearance of Judgment Debtor No.2. The State Commission has issued NBW for the very same reason to secure the presence of Judgment Debtor No.2, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2021. Appellants have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, warranting interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal Dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINT“Judgment-debtors have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution.”

IMPORTANT POINT
“Judgment-debtors have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution.”