To pay Rs.55,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.”
3. Since the Opposite Parties failed to comply the order dated 30.03.2020, the Complainant filed Execution Application No.292/2020 before the State Commission. On 27.10.2020, it was made clear that if the order dated 30.10.2020 was not complied, the Judgment Debtors were liable to be tried and punished under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Notice was given to put up their defence and plead guilty or not of non-compliance. It was made very clear that in case personal appearance is not made on the next date of hearing, it will be presumed that they have nothing to say in their defence and they would be deemed guilty of non-compliance. In that eventuality appropriate orders would be passed under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection, 2019. Thereafter, the State Commission, vide order dated 21.12.2020, issued bailable warrants against the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2020, the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors approached this Commission by filing Appeal Execution No.17/2021. This Commission, vide order dated 23.02.2021, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.2020, subject to the Judgment Debtors appearing before the State Commission on 24.02.2020 and listed EA/17/2021 on 26.03.2021. On 24.02.2021, the Judgment Debtors appeared before the State Commission, in compliance of the order of this Commission dated 23.02.2021, and the State Commission adjourned the matter for 20.04.2021. On 26.03.2021, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Judgment Debtors made a statement before this Commission that the purpose for which the Appeal Execution had been filed, no more existed. The Appeal Execution was, therefore, disposed of, vide order dated 26.03.2021 as follows: -
“Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Judgment Debtors Shri Bhupendra Singh and Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta appeared before the State Commission on 24.02.2021. He states that the purpose for which this Appeal Execution has been filed, exists no more and stands served. The Appeal Execution No.17 of 2021 is disposed of.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks to file objections before the State Commission to the Execution Appeal. He has the liberty to file any application.”
4. In compliance of the order of this Commission dated 26.03.2021, the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 20.04.2021, permitted the Judgment Debtors to file objections in the Registry before the date fixed in the State Commission. State Commission also noticed that the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors had not appeared and issued non-bailable warrants against them. Impugned order dated 20.04.2021 reads as follows: -
“Learned proxy counsel for JDs has placed on record order dated 26.03.2021 of Hon’ble National Commission passed in Appeal Execution No.17 of 2021, wherein following order has been filed: -
“Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Judgment Debtors Shri Bhupendra Singh and Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta appeared before the State Commission on 24.02.2021. He states that the purpose for which this Appeal Execution has been filed, exists no more and stands served. The Appeal Execution No.17 of 2021 is disposed of.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks to file objections before the State Commission to the Execution Appeal. He has the liberty to file any application.”
In view of above order of Hon’ble National Commission, JDs are liberty to file objections in the Registry before the date fixed.
Sh. Bhupendra Singh-Director and Sh. Kamal Kishore-Director of JD-Company have not appeared. These proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are criminal in nature OPs/JDs should be present in person. But they have not come present. There is no stay in this case.
Accordingly, non-bailable warrants be issued against JDs to Commissioner to Police, New Delhi and SSP Mohali for 10.06.2021.”
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellants have filed another Appeal Execution No.39/2021.
6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Judgments Debtors and carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Judgment Debtors submitted that the impugned order dated 20.04.2021 is bad in law as well as on facts and deserved to be set aside since it had been passed without application of mind. He further submitted that the State Commission failed to consider that the Judgement Debtors were represented through Advocates on 20.04.2021 and there was no order for their personal appearance.
7. On 27.10.2020, the State Commission very categorically stated that in case personal appearance is not made on the next date of hearing, it will be presumed that they have nothing to say in their defence and they would be deemed to be guilty of non-compliance. In that eventuality, appropriate order will be passed under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On 21.12.2020 the State Commission issued bailable warrants against the Judgment Debtors for securing their personal appearance. This Commission, vide order dated 23.02.2021, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 subject to the Judgment Debtors appearing before the State Commission on 24.02.2020. The submission of Learned Counsel for the Judgment Debtors that there was no order for personal appearance is, therefore, not correct. There were specific directions for personal appearance of the Judgment Debtors, which they failed to do. Neither Judgment Debtors sought exemption from personal appearance nor any order has been passed by the State Commission that their personal appearance had been dispensed. Learned Counsel for the Judgment Debtors submitted that on 26.03.2021 he had inadvertently made a statement before the National Commission that the purpose for which the Execution Appeal was filed did not exist. Based on the submission of the Learned Counsel, this Commission vide order dated 26.03.2021, disposed of the matter. Based on the orders of the National Commission, and the submissions made by the Learned Counsel before the National Commission, the State Commission gave the Judgment Debtors liberty to file objections in the Registry.
8. Original decree was passed on 30.03.2020, which was to be complied within two months. Judgment Debtors did not comply with the order of the State Commission and they also failed to personally appear before the State Commission, except once as per orders of this Commission, in the Execution Proceedings and plead their case. Instead they repeatedly approached this Commission with Execution Appeals, one after the other. When asked, the Learned Counsel submitted that so far Occupancy Certificate has also not been received. The State Commission has been systematically pursuing action in the Execution Proceedings, but it is observed that the Appellants/Judgment Debtors have not been appearing before the State Commission and absented themselves, except on the orders of this Commission, despite no orders dispensing with their personal appearance.
9. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Impugned Order, warranting interference in the Appellate Jurisdiction. Appeal Execution No.39/2021 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim applications also stand disposed.
