Haryana

StateCommission

RP/18/2017

SUDHIR BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,AMBALA - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.JAIN

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.18 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 17.02.2017

Date of Decision: 03.03.2017

 

Sudhir Bansal S/o Shri Des Raj, R/o 1229, Sector-9, Ambala City.

 

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1. Saroj Verma W/oSh.J.K.Verma, R/o H.NO.712, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.
2. Himani Verma D/o Sh.J.K.Verma, r/o H.No.712, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.
3. AnkurVerma S/o Sh.J.K.Verma, r/o H.No.712, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.
4. The Navyug Cooperative Non-Agricultural Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Ambala, through its Liquidator.
5. The Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Haryana, Sector-2, Panchkula.
6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Society, Jalbera Road, Ambala City.

          .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   Vide this revision petition revisionist/opposite party No.2 wants to subvert the order dated 16.07.2010 passed against him by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) vide which he was directed to pay the amount mentioned therein to the complainants, which is as under:-

                   “a.     To pay to the  complainant No.1 a total sum of Rs.34500/- in respect of FDR No.8191 dt. 06.07.05 (Annex. C 17), Rs.57500/- in respect of FDR No.8198 dated 06.07.2005 (Annex. C18), Rs.23,000/- in respect of FDR No.8192 dated 06.07.2005 (Annex. C16), Rs.20184/- in respect of FDR NO.8668 dated 22.04.2006 (Annex. C-15), Rs.33640/- in respect of FDR No.8666 dated 21.04.2006 (Annex.C-19); with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. their respective dates of maturity till actual realization.

                   b       Also to pay to complainants NO.2 and 3, a sum of Rs.40368/- in respect of FDR No.8667 dated 14.02.2007 (Annex. C-21); with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. the respective dates of maturity till actual realization.

                   c        To pay to the complainat NO.3 a total sum of Rs.57500/- in respect of FDR No.8195 dated 06.07.2005 (Annex. C 25) and a sum of Rs.57500/- in respect of  FDR No.8194 dated 06.07.2005 (Annex.C-26) with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. the date of maturity till actual realization.

                   d       to pay to complainants NO.1 and 2 a sum of  Rs.57500/-  in respect of FDR No.8331 dated 16.07.2005 (Annex.C 23) and a sum of Rs.57500/- in respect of FDR NO.8332 dated 16.07.2005 (Annex. C 22) with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. the date of maturity till actual realization.

                   e       to pay to complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.63250/- in    respect of FDR No.8196 dated 06.07.2005 (Annex. C 27) with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. the date of maturity till actual realization.

                   f        to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.”

 In the main complaint it was alleged by complainants/respondents Nos.2 to 4 that revisionist was liable to pay aforesaid amount against the FDRs deposited by them.  Notice was sent to Superintendent Jail, Ambala to effect service upon revisionist for 18.12.2008, but, when nobody appeared on his behalf he was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter complainants filed execution petition NO.113 in the year 2010 for execution of order dated 16.07.2010. When recovery could not be effected his account was attached vide order dated 31.03.2014. For release of retiral benefits, he moved an application on 30.04.2014. When District forum insisted upon his presence during execution proceedings he has come up with this revision, sensing that to effect recovery he may not be sent behind bars as provided under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”)

2.                It is alleged in the revision petition that complainants obtained ex parte decision against him in violation of the provisions contained in The Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 (In short “Prisoners Act”).  He was wrongly impleaded as a party before the District Forum as chairman of concerned society because liquidator appointed so many other persons to look after it’s affairs.  Ex parte order should not have been passed against him.  In pursuance of order dated 16.07.2010 District forum sent letter dated 31.03.2014 to concerned bank to attach his account including retiral benefits. He moved an application before district  forum on 07.04.2014 raising following objections:-

                                      “i        The petitioner pleaded section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, where under, the district forum was to issue the certificate, to the collector for recovery of the amount and was not vested to attach the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

                                      ii.       The petitioner averred section 39 of the CPC where under the District Consumer Forum Panchkula was not vested to attach the property beyond its jurisdiction.

                                      iii       That the District Consumer Forum, Ambala was not vested for attachment of retiral benefits under section 60 (G) (KA) of CPC. The petitioner also cited the law laid down in this respect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1973 SC 1163 and 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 844. The said application is illegally been kept pending adjudication by the District Consumer Forum and no order is being passed there upon.”

Instead of deciding his objections, learned District Forum has directed his counsel to produce him. District Forum was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter pertaining to the society as per section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (In short Societies Act”).   Records of Consumer complaint NO.250 dated 18.07.2008 and execution application No.113 of 2010 pending for 22.02.2017 be called wherein orders are passed by District Forum beyond jurisdiction and  direct District forum to pass speaking order qua application dated 07.04.2014. 

3.                Arguments heard. File perused.

4.               Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently  argued that as per section 5 of the Prisoners Act if any person is confined in Jail then his presence is to be procured as mentioned in this Act. This procedure was not followed in the present case.  His retiral benefits could not be attached.  Ex parte order should not have been passed against him. District Forum was not having jurisdiction to issue notice to effect recovery from him. Jurisdiction of consumer Fora is also barred as per section 128 of Cooperative Societies Act.  The learned District Forum be directed to decide his application dated 07.04.2014 on merits before proceedings further.  He placed his reliance upon  opinion of  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others AIR 1976 S.C. 1163, opinion of  Hon’ble National Commission in Shamsha Bano Vs.Sahara India and Anr. 1992 (1) CPR 522 and opinion of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) Recent Civil Reports 751, Surjit Singh and ors. Vs. Harbant Kaur and ors. 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 686.

5.               These arguments are devoid of any force.  As already mentioned above, it is clear that the revisionist wants to get the orders dated 18.07.2008 and 16.07.2010 set aside after 9-7 years respectively without challenging them because to challenge those orders he has to show on what ground delay can be condoned. Instead of filing appeal or revisionist against those orders he has filed this petition to direct District Forum to decide his application.  It is well settled principle of law that on judicial side a direction cannot be issued to the District Forum. If revisionist  is aggrieved from any order then he could challenge the same, but, he has not done so. He wants adjudication upon his pleadings without filing any appeal or revision. Section 24 A  does not empower an aggrieved  person to get any order set aside beyond limitation. It is for the commission to see whether any record should be called or not. A person  against whom an order has been passed cannot ask to look into the validity of the order without challenging the same. Revisionist cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because they are based on altogether different facts. This revision is nothing more than an abuse of process of law, so it is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

March 03rd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.