IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Arvind Aggarwal – Petitioner
Versus
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Anr. – Respondents
CWP NO.28258 of 2023 AND CWP NO.28210 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 namely the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') whereby it dismissed the miscellaneous application moved by the petitioner for deleting his name from the array of judgment debtors.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was filed against M/s Raheja Developers Limited, before the Commission seeking refund of the amount along with the guaranteed premium, interest, compensation etc. as the company had delayed in providing services. Several other allegations were levelled apart from the above in the complaint and after having considered the said complaint, an order was passed on 21.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) by the Commission, whereby it directed as follows:-
"In consumer complaint bearing No. 01 of 2021 the developer/opposite party no.1 was directed as under:
i. To refund the entire amount of Rs.2,13,25,900/- paid by the complainant alongwith the amount of guaranteed premium compensation @ Rs. 1400/- per square feet of the area of unit alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 22.09.2017 (60 days from completion of 36 months from the date of booking of unit) without deducting any TDS, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and failure to do so shall entail additional compensation of Rs.1000/- per day, till realization.
It is made clear that in case any amount stood refunded to the complainant out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,13,25,900/- and guaranteed premium compensation, the same shall be deducted accordingly, by the developer.
ii. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any, which stood auto debited from his account by opposite party no.2-ICICI Bank, towards equated monthly installments alongwith taxes/miscellaneous charges, on the loan amount, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deductions till realization, as it was the legal obligation of the developer to pay the said EMIs, as agreed to, under the tripartite agreement and also MOU aforesaid, which fact has not been disputed by the developer.
It is also made clear that the developer-opposite party no.1 shall repay the entire pending/future EMIs alongwith taxes/miscellaneous charges, of the loan amount, to opposite party no.2-ICICI Bank, alongwith up-to-date interest on the loan account and keep the complainant fully indemnified in this regard, till the time refund of the aforesaid amount is made to the complainant.
iii. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
In consumer complaint bearing No.02 of 2021 the developer/opposite party no.1 was directed as under:-
i. To refund the entire amount of Rs.2,00,89,129/- paid by the complainant alongwith the amount of guaranteed premium compensation @ Rs.1400/- per square feet of the area of unit alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 22.09.2017 (60 days from completion of 36 months from the date of booking of unit) without deducting any TDS, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and failure to do so shall entail additional compensation of Rs.1000/- per day, till realization.
It is made clear that in case any amount stood refunded the complainant out of the aforesaid amount of to Rs.2,00,89,129/- and guaranteed premium compensation, the same shall be deducted accordingly, by the developer.
ii. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any, which stood auto debited from her ac
AI
A director's resignation is effective only upon notification to the Registrar, and interim orders in execution proceedings are not subject to writ jurisdiction.
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
Executing Court – An executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute the decree as it stands.
No revision petition against the order passed in appeal filed under section 27-A of Act is maintainable before national commission.
Insolvency proceedings against a company do not necessarily halt personal liability for directors if they are parties in person before consumer dispute commissions.
1. EP Proceedings - The Execution Proceedings being separate proceedings and be filed under the Act which has been prevalent at the time of filing of the Execution Proceedings.2. Non Compliance of Or....
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.