STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 20.09.2010 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Sh. Sarwan Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Ram R/o Village and Post Office Kamam, Distt. S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab and 17 other decree holders. ……Applicants. VersusSh. Parveen Sehajpal S/o Sh. B. R. Sharma, R/o Village Aur, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr. ....Respondent. (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 08.11.2010 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Sh. Sarwan Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Ram R/o Village and Post Office Kamam, Distt. S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab and 17 other decree holders. ……Applicants. VersusSh. Parveen Sehajpal S/o Sh. B. R. Sharma, R/o Village Aur, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr. ....Respondent. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: None. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This order will dispose of two miscellaneous applications bearing Nos.146 and 166 both of 2010 filed by Sarwan Kumar regarding the execution of the orders passed by this Commission on 21.8.2008 in the execution proceedings. 2. The facts in brief are that Sarwan Kumar, applicant and others had deposited certain amounts with M/s Sehajpal Finance and Investment Ltd., Head Office Aur, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr and its subsidiaries Sehajpal Investment (Regd) and Sehajpal Finance and Estate. Thereafter, the OPs closed the finance company and did not refund the said amount to Sh. Sarwan Kumar and others upon which complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were filed by them against the Finance Companies and its office bearer, which were allowed by the learned District Forum, Nawanshahr vide different orders. When even inspite of that OPs did not comply with the orders and did not pay the amounts, the applicant took out execution of the said order in which Parveen Sehajpal filed certain objections against the attachment and sale of the house, which were dismissed by the learned District Forum, Nawanshahr. The learned District Forum ordered the attachment and sale by public auction of the house against which an appeal was filed by the OPs before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The said appeals were transferred vide order dated 29.4.2008 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The appeals were partly allowed by this Commission vide order dated 21.8.2008 and it was directed that instead of selling the entire house, only half share in the house is liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree against the OPs in view of Section 60(1)(ccc) of C.P.C. The appeals were thus disposed of by this Commission. 3. The complainants have now filed these two miscellaneous applications alleging that when warrant of attachment and sale was issued by the learned District Forum, Nawanshahr, the collector has returned the same with the direction that the portion of the house, which is to be sold by public auction, should be specified. The complainants have, therefore, prayed for specific directions in this respect. 4. We have gone through the submissions made in both the applications and have also carefully perused the record. 5. The order dated 21.8.2008 passed by this Commission is very much clear that it is only the share in the house, which is to be sold and therefore, the question of specifying any particular portion of the house to be sold does not arise. The house has not been partitioned so far between the OP and the other co-sharers. The law does not prohibit the sale of a share in the house. The orders passed by this Commission cannot be said to be vague. However, these orders are to be complied with by learned District Forum, Nawanshahr and if there is any problem in the execution of the orders, it is the District Forum, Nawanshahr, which is to take further action in the matter. In case the collector is not complying with the orders of the learned District Forum, which issued the warrant of attachment and sale, the action against the collector or the application by the complainants in that respect would lie either before the District Forum, Nawanshahr or before the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. This Commission, therefore does not have any further directions to give or clarification to make because after the decision dated 21.8.2008, it has become functus officio in the matter. 6. Both the applications are, therefore, dismissed leaving the complainants at liberty to take further appropriation action as they deem fit. 7. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 24th January 2011. [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION (IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2010) Argued by: None.. Dated the 24th day of January 2011. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this application along with connected M.A.166 of 1010 have been dismissed. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 08.11.2010 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Sh. Sarwan Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Ram R/o Village and Post Office Kamam, Distt. S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab and 17 other decree holders. ……Applicants. VersusSh. Parveen Sehajpal S/o Sh. B. R. Sharma, R/o Village Aur, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr. ....Respondent. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: None. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Miscellaneous Application No.146 of 2010 titled ‘Sarwan Kumar Vs. Parveen Sehajpal’ vide which this application has been dismissed. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 24th January 2011. [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
