STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Present through video conferencing:                

                      Brig. D.S. Grewal, non-applicant/decree holder no.1 in person.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   This application has been filed by the convict-Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2, through Deputy Superintendent Gr.1, Model Jain, Chandigarh, as he (Aashish Goel) is undergoing sentence in Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh, awarded by this Commission, vide order dated 17.05.2012, in execution applications bearing no.35, 36 and 37 of 2011 for non-compliance of order dated 20.07.2010 passed in the main consumer complaints. Vide this application-Sh.Aashish Goel has sought physical appearance before this Commission, on the ground that he is willing to settle the amount as per the order dated 20.07.2010 aforesaid.

2.           This application has been contested by the decree holder/non-applicant by stating that since Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 has lost all the legal battles including the earlier applications bearing nos.820, 821 and 822 of 2020 for suspension of the sentence which he is undergoing, for non compliance of the order impugned in totality, as such, this application filed by him for his physical appearance before this Commission will not serve any purpose and  deserves dismissal. The decree holder/non-applicant has also placed on record a copy of order passed dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, whereby,  the application bearing no.41951 of 2020 filed by Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.458 dated 23.10.2009 under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, was dismissed by observing that no ground is made out to extend the concession of bail to him.           
3.           We have heard the non-applicant/decree holder no.1 and have also gone through the record of the case including this application filed by Sh.Aashish Goel-Judgment Debtor No.2 and its reply filed by the decree holders, very carefully.
4.           It may be stated here that perusal of the record reveals that earlier also, on the request of Counsel for the applicant-Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2, physical hearing was afforded to him, to settle the dispute. However, on 08.01.2021, Counsel for the applicant-Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 offered to make payment of Rs.10 Lakhs to the decree holders, which offer was out rightly rejected by Brig. D. S. Grewal, Decree Holder No.1 in the presence of his Counsel. Even earlier also, opportunity was given to the judgment debtors during Lok Adalat on 12.12.2020, however, the judgment debtors failed to settle the dispute and also failed to honour the decree passed.  As such, earlier applications bearing no.820,  821 and 822 of 2020 filed by filed by Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2, in execution applications bearing no.35,36 and 37 of 2011 respectively had also been dismissed by this Commission while holding as under:-

“………8.                First of all, it is important to mention here that on the request of Counsel for the applicant/Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2, physical hearing was afforded in these matters to settle the dispute. However, on 08.01.2021, Counsel for the applicant/Sh. Aashish Goel, judgment debtor No.2 offered to make payment of Rs.10 Lakhs to the decree holders, which offer was out rightly rejected by Brig. D. S. Grewal, Decree Holder No.1 in the presence of his Counsel. Even earlier also, opportunity was give