Haryana

StateCommission

RP/94/2014

Aman Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Robin Chhabra - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                     

                                      Revision Petition No.   104 of 2014

                                      Date of Institution:        12.09.2014

                                      Date of Decision:         15.12.2015

 

Aman Kapoor, Director of M/s Rishabh Info Solution Private Limited, Plot No.298, D Park, Model Town, Rohtak, Haryana.

                                       Petitioner

Versus

 

Robin Chhabra s/o Sh. Anil Kumar Chhabra, House No.606, Sector 14, Rohtak, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                                    

For the parties:   Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner

                             None for the respondent 

                            

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Robin Chhabra-complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) on May 28^th, 2008 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was allowed vide order dated February 07^th, 2011.  The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “Keeping in view the above referred case laws which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable and the complainant is entitled for the tuition fee.  Accordingly we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of fee paid vide receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 i.e. Rs.3296 x 6 = Rs.19776/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of passing of this order failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from dated 07.03.2011 onwards till its realization to the complainant.”

2.      The complainant filed execution application before the District Forum.  Vide impugned order dated August 11^th, 2014 District Forum issued warrant of arrest against Aman Kapoor-petitioner, Director of the NIIT, Sonepat.

3.      Aggrieved of the order dated August 11, 2014, Aman Kapoor has filed the present revision petition. 

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on November 07^th, 2011 when the complaint was allowed or prior thereto petitioner had no interest in the NIIT.  On November 29^th, 2011 Agreement for Sale of Business and Proposed Negotiation Letter (Annexure A-7) was entered into between Mr. Vikas Khatter, who was vendor and licencee of M/s NIIT Limited-opposite parties.  In view of this, order dated February 07^th, 2011 was to be implemented by the then Director of NITT and not by the petitioner.  So, question of issuance of warrant of arrest against him does not arise.

5.        Submission being convincing, the warrant of arrest could not have been issued against the petitioner because he was not the Director of NITT at the time when the order dated February 07^th, 2011 was passed.  This being so, the impugned order is set aside.  However, District Forum shall proceed further in accordance with law against the then Director of NITT as ordered in the order dated February 07^th, 2011.  The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

           

 

Announced: 15.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

 

UK