Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Sumesh Chawla – Appellant
versus
Sandeep Baweja and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal Execution No.41 of 2020 and Appeal Execution No.7 of 2022
Decided on 18.5.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i), Section 27(3) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i), 72] – Services – Real Estate – Appeal against order of State Commission has rejected the application of the appellant for recalling the order – Whether proceeding can be termed as nullity - The appellants has raised plea that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the appellant before the State Commission. It may be mentioned that the provision of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in the nature of civil contempt and under Section 27 (3) of the Act is liable to be tried summarily. Section 317 Cr.P.C. provides for dispensing with attendance of the accused. In the present case, the appellant was appearing through counsel before the State Commission throughout, as such, the proceeding cannot be held to be nullity or suffer from any illegality. The decree dated 08.05.2017 is being still unsatisfied as such the appellant is not liable to any leniency – Thus, Appeal Execution is dismissed. [Para 9]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent-1 and Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocate for respondents-2 & 3, in both the appeals.
2. Appeal Execution No. 41 of 2020 has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 02.06.2020 whereby State Commission has rejected the application of the appellant for recalling the order dated 12.06.2018, holding the appellant as guilty for violating the order and awarding sentence. Appeal Execution No.7 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2021, whereby, the appellant and respondent-3 have been directed to deposit Rs.4609823/- with future interest, in the Execution Application No.476 of 2017. Both these appeals are arising out of the orders passed in CC No.625 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 whereby the appellant and respondent-2 were jointly and severally directed to refund the entire money deposited by respondent-1 with them along with interest as such these were consolidated and heard together. The order dated 08.05.2017 has been challenged in FA No.328 of 2020, which has been dismissed as time barred by order dated 21.10.2020. The appellant challenged the order dated 21.10.2020 in SLP (Civil) No.14188 of 2020, which was disposed of by order dated 16.02.2021. However, interim order was extended till 30.04.2021 giving liberty to the appellant to satisfy the decree in the meantime.
3. Ms. Sandeep Baweja (respondent-1) booked a flat in the project launched by M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-2), in which, Sumesh Chawla (the appellant) was Managing Director. Ms. Sandeep Baweja and M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. entered into agreement dated 28.08.2009, which was signed by Sumesh Chawla in the capacity of Managing Director, whereby they agreed to sell a flat admeasuring 2075 sq.ft., for a sale consideration of Rs.2500000/-. Rs.500000/- were paid on 28.08.2009 and balance sale consideration of Rs.200000/- were paid on 29.08.2009 to Sumesh Chawla, appellant. In spite of full and final payment, M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Sumesh Chawla were not able to hand over the possession to Ms. Sandeep Baweja over the flat allotted to her, within stipulated period. Therefore, she filed CC/625/2016 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh impleading M/s. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Sumesh Chawla as the opposite parties. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing their joint written reply. However, State Commission by order dated 08.05.2017 held that agreement was executed between the parties on 28.08.2009 and full sale consideration was paid up to 29.08.2009. Under the agreement, the possession has to be handed over till 31.12.2010, but the opposite parties could not proceed with the construction nor could offer possession till the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to refund entire amount of Rs.2500000/- along with interest @15% p.a., Rs.1.25 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.33000/- as cost of litigation, within 45 days from the judgment, otherwise the interest would increase @18% p.a. As stated above, the order of the State commission dated 08.05.2017 has attained finality up to Supreme Court.
4. Respondent-1 /Decree Holder filed an application (registered as in Execution Application No. 476 of 2017) for execution of the decree, which was admitted and notices were issued to judgment debtor on 09.01.2018. Respondent-1 also filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Execution Application No.476 of 2017. State Commission after hearing the parties by order dated 12.06.2018 found that the order dated 08.05.2017 has not been complied with, therefore, Sumesh Chawla, the appellant was guilty of wilful disobedience of order dated 08.05.2017, as such, sentence of two years simple
Nullity - In the present case, the appellant was appearing through counsel before the State Commission throughout, as such, the proceeding cannot be held to be nullity or suffer from any illegality.
Settled law that Executing Courts cannot go behind the Decree
(1) National Commission - National Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or j....
Appeal Execution – The impugned Order against which the present Appeal Execution has been filed cannot be termed to be an Order passed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at all.
(1) Judgment Debtors did not comply with the order of the State Commission and failed to personally appear before the State Commission, except once.(2) Judgment Debtors repeatedly approached this Com....
Consumer Forum – Corporate Debtor - The proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act can be instituted and continued against a corporate debtor, which has failed or omitted to comply w....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
