SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(HP) 1312

HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana (R), President, Vijay Pal Khachi, Member, Sunita Sharma, Member.
Ajay Vohra - Appellant
Versus
Dila Ram - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 22 of 2018
Decided On : 18-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Manoj Chauhan Advocate, for the Revisionist; Mr. Digvijay Singh Advocate, for the Non-revisionist

The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of the execution petition against the director of a company under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, highlighting the consumer-oriented approach of the Act.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Execution Petition - Section 25, Section 27 - The court discussed the maintainability of the execution petition against the director of a company and the legal provisions under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It highlighted the directions of the State Consumer Commission and the legal competence of the commission to review or recall its own earlier order. The court emphasized the consumer-oriented approach of the Act and modified the order of the Executing Forum accordingly.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant invested money with the opposite party under a scheme and filed a consumer complaint when the promised amount was not refunded. The Executing Forum ordered the refund with interest, and the complainant filed multiple execution petitions against the director of the company.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the execution petition against the director was maintainable based on the directions of the State Consumer Commission and the legal provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It emphasized the consumer-oriented approach of the Act and modified the order of the Executing Forum.

Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the execution petition against the director and the legal competence of the State Consumer Commission to review or recall its earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution petition against the director was maintainable in accordance with the directions of the State Consumer Commission and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It emphasized the consumer-oriented approach of the Act.

Final Decision: The court modified the order of the Executing Forum and directed the Executing Forum to seek a compliance report from the concerned Collector under section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It also emphasized the legal duty of the Executing Forum to fully satisfy the execution petition in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present order shall dispose of revision petition filed by nonexecutant against order dated 21.02.2018 passed by Learned Executing Forum in Execution Petition No. 6-A/2015 titled Dila Ram v. Ajay Vohra Director of Accord Plantation Limited Unit of Blue Peak.

Brief facts of matter:

2. Complainant Dila Ram filed consumer complaint No. 517/2003 against opposite party pleaded therein that opposite party launched scheme and invited consumers to invest money with opposite party with promise to pay higher rate of interest. It is pleaded that complainant invested a total sum of Rs. 110000/- (One lac ten thousand). It is further pleaded that on maturity complainant was entitled to sum of Rs. 220000/- (Two lac twenty thousand). It is further pleaded that opposite party did not refund the amount to the complainant as promised despite various demands. Learned District Forum disposed of Consumer Complaint No. 517 of 2003 on dated 20.07.2004 and ordered opposite party-finance company to refund the amount of Rs. 220000/- (Two lac twenty thousand) with interest @12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of complaint till actual payment is made. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) as litigation costs which would be paid within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

3. Thereafter complainant filed Execution Application No. 8 of 2013 against Ajay Vohra Director of Accord Plantation Limited Unit of Blue Peak personally with the request to issue recovery certificate against the non executant and punish the non-executant under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned Executing Forum on dated 07.01.2015 held that Execution Petition is not executable. Learned Executing Forum further ordered that Executant could seek fresh execution against the Guarantor/Director of the Company.

4. Executant Dila Ram filed M.A. No.917/2014 before H.P. State Consumer Commission and H.P. State Consumer Commission disposed of M.A. No.917/2014 on dated 01.01.2015 and State Commission directed the Executing Forum to dispose of Execution Petition expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of copy of order.

5. Thereafter Executant filed fresh Execution Petition No. 6-A of 2015 on dated 23.02.2015 against Ajay Vohra personally in the capacity of Director of Accord Plantation Limited Unit of Blue Peak. On dated 21.02.2018 Executant submitted before the learned Executing Forum that property of non-executant is situated in Jirakpur District SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab. Learned Executing Forum issued certificate for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under section 25 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to Collector. Learned Executing Forum ordered that as and when amount would be received from the Collector concerned Executant would be informed accordingly. Learned Executing Forum consigned the Execution Petition to record room.

6. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 21.02.2018 passed by learned Executing Forum revisionist/nonexecutant Ajay Vohra Director of Accord Plantation Limited Unit of Blue Peak filed present revision petition before State Commission.

7. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.

8. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.

1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition and whether State Commission has powers to set aside or recall its earlier order dated 03.08.2006 passed in M.A. No.498/2006 under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist/non-executant that liquidation order of Accord Plantation Limited already stood passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Company Petition No.222 of 2003 and Exec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top