KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
Huluvadi G Ramesh, President, K.B. Sangannanavar, Judicial Member and M. Divyashree, Lady Member
V.N. Lakshminarayana – Appellant
versus
K.B. Dyavegowda – Respondent
Appeal No.1623 of 2023
Decided on 31.8.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 73 – Execution of award – Forum/Commission/Court normally cannot go beyond awards or decree – Forum below declared OP ex parte, accepted endorsement on notice as ‘unclaimed’ without further notifying the notice through sub-service including paper publication – Commission below has to hold enquiry in accordance with known procedure as contemplated U/s.72 of CPA 2019 before sending appellant to judicial custody – Appeal disposed of with direction to examine all pros and cons of legal implications of subsequent events taken place, affording opportunity to both parties. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Appeal disposed of with direction.
ORDER
K.B. Sangannanavar, Pri. Dist & Session Judge (R) - Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed U/s.73 of CPA 2019 by Jdr/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.19.08.2023 passed in EA/36/2022 on the file of Hassan District Commission. (The parties in this appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned by the Commission below in EA/36/2022).
2. The matter is placed before the commission for hearing on admission. The Commission heard the learned counsel for Appellant/Jdr and perused the impugned order, grounds of appeal and appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel for Jdr submits that the Commission below failed to appreciate provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) and failed to appreciate the fact that Mr.V.N.Lakshminarayan, was not a arrayed as a party by name in CC/80/2016 on the file of Hassan District Commission. He further submits that properties of Hindustan Infracon (India) Ltd., i.e. Jdr is already attached under KPIDFE Act 2004 and to that affect CCH 92 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 30.10.2021 in Misc.No.615/2019 allowed the petition filed U/s.5(2) R/w Sec.11(1) of KPIDFE Act 2004 and as a consequences attached immovable properties described under schedule-I of the Government notification dtd.06.02.2019 are made absolute and directed Competent Authority to distribute the amount realised out of the properties attached to the depositors in accordance with law.
4. Let us examine the impugned order and brief history of the case, as to how, the consumer complaint in question came to be filed on the file of Hassan District Commission and to examine whether Commission below followed the mandatory provisions contemplated U/s.71 & 72 of CPA 2019 which corresponds to Sec.25 & 27 of CPA 1986 before passing the impugned order?.
5. As per Annex-B could see Mr.K.B.Dyavegowda S/o Boregowda filed consumer complaint on 06.04.2016 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and sought issuance of directions against OP to pay a sum of Rs.8,79,519/- along with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the deficiency in service along with such other reliefs. It is to be noticed from the consumer complaint, OP has been shown as “Hindustan Infracon (India) Ltd., Head office, No.826/A, 2nd floor, 5th main road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40” and is recorded as exparte. From this order could also see Complainant issued legal notice to OP dated 15.01.2016 and the said notice came to be returned with an endorsement ‘office closed’ as such forum ordered to issue notice to OP and notice returned unclaimed, OP is placed exparte. In other words, no further proper steps taken to notify the complaint through substituted services including issuance of Paper Notification but proceed to hold an enquiry, received Ex-P1 to P10 and affidavit evidence, thereby allowed the complaint in part and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.8,79,519/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing complaint and Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within one month, failing which, to pay interest at 9% p.a. from such default till realisation. This order was passed on 22.07.2016, whereas execution case EA/36/2022 came to be filed on 06.09.2022, seeking execution of the award amount of Rs.13,84,835/-. In this EA, for the first time Mr.V.N.Lakshminarayana, is arrayed as Managing Director of Hindustan Infracon (India) Ltd., who put his appearance, submitted objections and brought certain vital facts contending that as per KPIDFE Act 2004 all the immovable properties of OP company are attached by notifying the public at large as per schedule.1 and the competent court made the attachment order absolute and directed the competent authority to take further necessary steps for realisation of the property attached in order to distribute the amount realised. It is found in Kannada Prabha Daily News Paper dtd.21.06.2019 as per
Execution of award – Forum/Commission/Court normally cannot go beyond awards or decree.
The court upheld the attachment of properties under the KPIDFE Act, emphasizing the necessity to protect depositors' interests despite the appellants' claims of procedural impropriety and lack of com....
The Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act allows for the attachment of directors' properties to secure depositor claims, even if claims of prior directorial r....
The Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 overrides the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, prohibiting the Dy. Registrar from adjudicating disputes once a ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.