Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 1167
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana ® President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member, Ms. Meena Verma Member.
Shri Varinder Singh Chandel - Appellant
Versus
Shri Inder Dev Singh - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 44 of 2016
Decided On : 09-03-2017
None, for the Revisionist; Mr. Mandeep Singh vice Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocates, for the Non-Revisionist
Execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are punitive and must adhere to the procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Execution Proceedings - Section 27, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Summary Trial - Procedural Irregularity
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a consumer complaint regarding defective construction of a poly-house. The District Forum initially ordered the opposite party to replace the defective material or pay compensation. The case went through multiple appeals and execution proceedings, leading to the present revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the Executing Forum did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which requires following the procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The court held that the Executing Forum committed material procedural irregularity in the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Acceptance of the revision petition filed by the opposite party. 2. Final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that execution proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are punitive and must follow the procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It highlighted the time-bound nature of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the Executing Forum was set aside. The Executing Forum was directed to comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for summary trial and dispose of the execution application within three months.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President Present revision petition filed under section 17(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 31.08.2016 passed by District Executing Forum Kangra at Dharmashala camp at Jawali in execution application No. 57 of 2013 title Inder Dev Singh v. Varinder Singh Chandel.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Shri Inder Dev Singh filed consumer complaint No. 267/2010 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 title Inder Dev Singh v. Varinder Singh Chandel. Consumer complaint was disposed of by learned District Forum on dated 30.04.2011 with order that opposite party would replace defective material used for construction of poly-house or would pay Rs. 588500/- (Five lacs eighty eight thousand five hundred) to the complainant received by opposite party for construction of poly-house. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand). Learned District Forum further ordered that complainant would also be entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) from opposite party. Learned District Forum further ordered that litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 5000/- would be paid by opposite party. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would comply with order of District Forum within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite party filed appeal No. 266/2011 title Varinder Singh Chandel v. Inder Dev Singh before State Commission. State Commission remanded complaint to learned District Forum with the direction to decide the complaint afresh after affording an opportunity to opposite party to contest complaint. State Commission directed parties to appear before learned District Forum on 02.08.2012. On dated 02.08.2012 learned District Forum directed opposite party to file version on 27.08.2012 at Jawali. Learned District Forum on 02.08.2012 granted last opportunity to opposite party to file version. Version not filed by opposite party despite last opportunity granted to file version. Learned District Forum on 27.08.2012 closed right of opposite party to file version by order of District Forum. Thereafter Learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that complainant does not want to lead any additional evidence. Learned District Forum listed case for final arguments on 21.09.2012 at Jawali. Thereafter Shri Varinder Singh opposite party filed revision petition No. 51 of 2012 against order dated 27.08.2012 before State Commission title Varinder Singh Chandel v. Inder Dev Singh. State Commission set aside order dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned District Forum and directed parties to appear before learned District Forum on 21.12.2012 and State Commission further directed that before 21.12.2012 opposite party would file reply before learned District Forum. State Commission also imposed costs to the tune of Rs. 2000/- upon opposite party.
3. Thereafter on 17.01.2013 opposite party filed version. On 20.02.2013 learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that complainant already adduced evidence and does not want to adduce any further evidence. Thereafter learned District Forum directed opposite party to adduce evidence by way of affidavit. Opposite party adduced evidence by way of affidavit and closed evidence. Thereafter case was listed for arguments. On 21.06.2013 learned District Forum partly allowed complaint and ordered that opposite party would repair poly-house of complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which opposite party would refund Rs. 5.88 lacs (Five lacs eighty eight thousand) to complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its actual payment. Learned District Forum also ordered that opposite party would pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to the complainant. Learned District
