Chandigarh

StateCommission

AEA/2/2023

AMARJIT SINGH SON OF S MAKHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR CITY HOMES DIVISION - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL GOYAL

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

==================

Appeal Execution No.	:	AEA/2/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	23/11/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	03/04/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Amarjit Singh son of S. Makhan Singh, Resident of House No.2635, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab.

…. Appellant

 

Vs.

 

M/s Sahara India Pariwar (City Homes Division), SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022 through

(a)    Arun Kumar Singh (Regional Manager)

(b)    Anoop Kumar Srivastava (Sector Manager)

 

2^nd Address:

SCO 84/A, Shahi Majra, Balongi Road, Mohali, Punjab, through Satish Sharma (Area Manager).

 

3^rd Address:

SCO 40-41, 2^nd Floor, Phase-V, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through Satish Sharma (Area Manager).

 

4^th Address:

M/s Sahara India Pariwar (Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation) Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226024, through Managing Director.

 

…. Respondent

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.         The present Appeal Execution under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), with a prayer to set-aside the same and to issue directions to the Ld. District Commission to continue with the criminal proceedings against the Respondents/Judgment Debtors. For the sake of precision, the order dated 02.11.2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“The Ld. Counsel for the JDs filed and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as S.E.B.I Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. To come up on 15.01.2024 for consideration.”

 

2.         The backdrop of the case is that the decree dated 30.11.2021 was passed by the Ld. District Commission and following relief was granted:-

“9.    In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

(i)      To refund the amount of Rs.4,42,100/- to the Complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of respective payments, till realization.

 

(ii)    To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

 

(iii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

10.    This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of respective payments till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.

 

3.         To comply with this decree, the Decree Holder/ Complainant (Appellant herein) moved an execution application and in that execution application the order dated 02.11.2023, which is impugned before us, as mentioned above, was passed.

 

4.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and also carefully perused the record with their able assistance.

 

5.         The issue that arises for consideration in this Appeal Execution is as to whether any interference is warranted to direct the Ld. District Commission to take necessary steps to execute the decreetal order.

 

6.         Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

7.         Learned Counsel for the Appellant, inter alia, submits that the Respondent failed to comply with the order and continued to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. He has further submitted that notice of the execution application was issued on 18.01.2022 and it was after much efforts non-bailable warrants were issued against the Respondent on 20.07.2023 (i.e. after the lapse of 8 months), but the same received back un-executed. However, the Ld. District Commission continued to simply adjourn the matter for consideration; whereas, it should have taken necessary coercive steps to execute its own orders.

 

8.         The argument, though attractive at first blush, pales into insignificance in view of the peculiar facts obtaining here. Careful perusal of record reveals that pursuant to notice of motion dated 18.01.2022, when the Respondent/Judgment Debtor failed to make compliance of the decreetal order, the Ld. District Commission issued non-bailable warrants of Judgment Debtor/Respondent on 20.07.2023 for 27.09.2023. On 27.09.2023 non-bailable warrants received back unexecuted. As the work remained suspended till 29.09.2023 due to the call given by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the case was adjourned to 02.11.2023 for further proceedings. On the said date, Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Judgment Debtor had placed on record copy of the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “SEBI Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors.” and the case stands adjourned to 15.01.2024 for consideration, which led to the filing of the instant Execution Application. The chain of proceedings of the Ld. District Commission hereinabove would show that it is earnestly making efforts to get the decree executed in the first instance and when the Respondent/Decree Holder failed to make compliance, by resorting to the coercive process to execute the same by issuing warrants. In this back drop, we are not inclined to toe in line with the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Ld. District Commission without applying its mind has simply adjourned the matter for consideration; whereas, it should have taken necessary coercive steps to execute its order. At any rate, it is not the Decree Holder/Appellant who can dictate the terms to the Executing Court/Ld. District Commission and advise it what it should do and what it should not. It is always the prerogative of the Executing Court to adopt a procedure to dispense justice to the Decree Holder so as enable him/her to reap the fruits of the decree.  The Decree Holder cannot thrust upon his/her opinion or wisdom on the Executing Court and dictate terms in this regard. It is thus, demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind.

 

9.         In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this execution appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

10.         The parties are, therefore, directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission concerned on 15.04.2024.

 

11.         Complete record of execution file be sent back to the Ld. District Commission concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

 

12.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

13.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

03^rd April, 2024                                                                 

                                         Sd/-                         

                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”