1.      Heard Ms. Reena Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner and Preet Kamal Singh, contesting respondent-1, in person, through video conferencing and examined the written submission filed by them and the record of the case.

2.      This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 16.12.2019, passed in Appeal No. 130 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 02.05.2019, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 544 of 2018), whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, has allowed the complaint and directed M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs.33,014/- as the costs of DDB LED, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 7,000/ as cost of litigation to the complainant, within a period of 30 days and the appeal of M/S Videocon Industries limited, filed from the aforesaid order, has been dismissed.

3.      Preet Kamal Singh (respondent-1) filed Consumer Complaint No. 544 of 2018, against Videocon Industries Limited, Videocon d2h Limited and Pinky Electronics, for refund of Rs.33014/- as the price of DDB LED along with interest @ 19% p.a. from the date of its sale i.e. 23.10.2014 till its refund, Rs. 20,000/-, for his physical and mental harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as the cost of litigation. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased an electronic product of Videocon Industries Ltd., i.e. DDB LED with serial No. 110914780148007641, on 23.10.2014, for Rs.33014/- vide invoice No. 16728, from Pinky Electronics (opposite party-3), who was its authorised dealer. The product was under a warrantee for a period of 5 years. From the date of its purchase, the LED started problems in its function, due to various manufacturing defects in it and stopped working within a short period. On the complaints made in this respect, the Engineers of the company repeatedly visited the residence of the complainant and tried to set right the defects but of no result. Firstly it was found that internal set top box of LED was defective and internal set top box was replaced within a month of its purchase. But there was defect in external set top box also, which was not replaced, in spite of several complaints made in this respect. Two times its speaker went out of order. Its buttons also went out of order. Its smart card was replaced. LED was suffering from manufacturing defects from the date of its purchase. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

4.      M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Videocon d2h Ltd. contested the case and filed their reply. It has been stated that Videocon d2h Ltd. was a separate entity and had no concern with DDB LED purchased by the complainant. It has been admitted that M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. was manufacturer and Pinky Electronics was its dealer, of DDB LED purchased by the complainant. It has been stated that the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended by the qualified Engineers of the company as and when it were made. Since the product was within the warrantee period as such the company was bound to repair it, free of costs. As such, when the complaint was made, LED was repaired free of costs and was functioning smoothly. There was no deficiency of service or manufacturing defect. The complainant malafide filed this complaint with an intention to replace the LED with a new product.

5.      It may be mentioned that during pendency of the proceeding before District Forum, the company offered the complainant to replace with a new LED of recent model, on 14.03.2019, but the offer was refused by the complainant on the ground that he had already purchased a new LED. Then the company proposed to refund the price of LED to the complainant and the matter was referred for compromise, but later on declined to compromise. District Consumer Forum heard the arguments of the parties on merit on 26.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, by its judgment dated 02.05.2019, came to the conclusion that the DDB LED in question, purchased by the complaint was suffering from manufacturing defects from the date of its purchase, due to which, it went out of order, several times, which was apparent from the complaints made by the complainants and repairs done by the Engineers of the company. By selling a defective product, the complainant was made to suffer physical and mental harassment. On these findings, the complaint was allowed as stated above.

6.      M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. filed Appeal No. 130 of 2019 from the aforesaid order. In the memorandum of appeal, a specific ground was taken that State Bank of India had initiated a proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. before National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (registered as Company Petition No. 2 of 2018), in which the Tribunal by its order dated 06.06.2018, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and pronounced moratorium according to Section 14 of the said Code, 2016 and institution of any suit or proceeding before any other court and authority against the company was prohibited. By a subsequent order dated 25.09.2019, the Tribunal replaced the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The present complaint was filed on 28.09.2018, i.e. subsequent to the order of Tribunal on 06.06.2018 as such it was not maintainable. However, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, without adverting to the aforesaid ground, dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision has been filed.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the parties. Filing of Company Petition No. 2 of 2018, under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. before National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, passing of order dated 06.06.2018, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and pronouncing moratorium under Section 14 of the said Code, 2016 have not been denied by the complainant. A copy of the order dated 06.06.2018 is placed on record. A perusal of the order dated 06.06.2018 shows that the Tribunal has prohibited institution of any suit or proceeding before any other court and authority against the company and appointed Mr. Anuj Jain as Insolvency Resolution Professional and directed him to submit Insolvency Resolution Plan within 30 days. Mr. Anuj Jain moved an application before the Tribunal for extension of CIRP period for 90 days, beyond 03.12.2018, which was allowed by order dated 21.01.2019. By a subsequent order dated 08.08.2019, Mr. Mahendra Khandelwal was appointed as Insolvency Resolution Professional. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2019, replaced the Insolvency Resolution Professional and appointed Mr. Abhijit Guhathakurta and directed him to submit Insolvency Resolution Plan till 04.02.2020 and by a subsequent order dated 28.01.2020, the period was extended for 90 days from 04.02.2020. This revision has been filed on 06.03.2020. There is nothing on record to say that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is still pending. It appears that Insolvency Resolution Plan has been accepted and the proceeding came to an end.

8.      The complainant has relied upon the judgement of three Members Bench of this Commission in Execution Application No. 25 of 2018 Lotus Panache Welfare Association Vs. M/S Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., dated 06.09.2019, in which, it has been held that the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was not affected with the moratorium, declared under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

9.      A perusal of this judgement reveals that this Commission has based its judgment on a judgement of Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2017, Tayal Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others decided on 06.08.2018. But the judgement of Bombay High Court in Tayal Cotton’s (supra) has been overruled by the judgment of Supreme Court in P Mohanraj and Ors. Vs. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 152 in which it has been held that even in criminal cases, where financial liability can be imposed upon the company, are affected with the moratorium. As such judgement of this Commission in Lotus Panache Welfare Association’s case (supra), is no more a good law.

10.    The complainant submitted next that at present, Company Petition No. 2 of 2018 is not pending.  Moratorium imposed in this petition came to an end on 02.05.2020, as such today the orders of Forums below cannot be set aside. We find force in the argument. The moratorium period was started on 06.06.2018. It was extended time to time and came to an end on 02.05.2020. The complaint, in present case was filed on 28.09.2018. The petitioner filed its written statement/reply on 17.01.2019. In which, no ground was raised that the complaint was not maintainable as National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by order dated 06.06.2018, passed in Company Petition No. 2 of 2018, under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. had declared moratorium and prohibited institution of the suit and proceeding against the company. The petitioner chose to contest the complaint on merit and concealed the fact relating to pendency of Insolvency proceeding against it or passing prohibitory order in it. Before District Consumer Forum, the petitioner also offered the complainant for exchange the LED with new piece of recent model.

11.    Purpose of moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was to keep the corporate debtor’s assets together during Insolvency Resolution Process and facilitating orderly completion of the process so that interest of the secured creditors or other dues, which have priority under the law, may not be jeopardised. Moratorium does not extinguish the claim of a party for ever rather it postpone its enforcement during pendency of insolvency proceeding. On acceptance of Insolvency Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Code, the moratorium comes to an end under Section 14 (4) of Code, 2016. There is nothing on record that Insolvency Resolution Process against the petitioner is continuing after 02.05.2020 and still pending. The petitioner has not pointed out any illegality in the orders of District Consumer Forum on merit. Nothing has been stated in the revision that the orders passed by Forum below would affect Insolvency Resolution Plan in any manner. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders for the reason that there is nothing on record to prove that at present Insolvency Resolution Process is pending and moratorium imposed in it, is still continuing or the impugned orders suffer from any other illegality.

O R D E R

In the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed.