Chandigarh

StateCommission

MA/243/2022

Sohan Marwaha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Singal & Ammish Goel Adv.

19 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Miscellaneous Application Nos. In EA/100/2021	:	243 of 2022 & 244 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	19.07.2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sohan Marwaha s/o Sh. Murari Lal R/o House No.13, Sector -11, Panchkula.

(now permanently residing at Flat No.102, Gola Building, Anand Vatika, Ciraha, Parikrama Marg, Vrindavan-281121).

……Decree Holder.

Versus

1]     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited through its Secretary/Manager/Director/Authorised Signatory Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow - 226024.

        IIND ADDRESS:-

        SCO No.1110-1111, Sector-22B, Chandigarh.

2]     Sahara Prime City Limited through its Director, Sahara India Centre 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, UP.

3]     Anil Kumar, Branch Manager-cum-authorised signatory, Sahara India, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector-22B, Chandigarh.

4]     Parshant Verma, Deputy Director, Sahara India Complex, Sahara, C-2, 3 and 4, Sector-11, Noida.

5]     Subrota Roy, Chairman, Sahara India Pariwar, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

 

 …..Judgment Debtors.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

              MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY :-        

 

Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for the Decree Holder.

Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the Judgment Debtors.

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                Vide this order, we are disposing of aforesaid two applications bearing Nos.243 of 2022 & 244 of 2022 filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 (Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited) for dismissal of the execution application against Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5, namely, Sh. Parshant Verma, Deputy Director, Sahara India Complex and Sh. Subrato Roy, Chairman, Sahara India Pariwar and the objections filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 to the main execution application No.100 of 2021.

2]             Dismissal of the execution application qua Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 has been sought on the ground that neither there is any personal transactions or agreement between the Decree Holder/Complainant and these Judgment Debtors nor the Decree Holder had made any statement in his complaint against Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5. It has further been stated that during the pendency of consumer complaint No.154 of 2019, compromise had been effected on 24.01.2020 and specific statement had been suffered by Judgment Debtor No.3 on behalf of Judgment Debtor No.1. It has further been stated that only thereafter, going through the contents of the compromise deed, the complainant had acknowledged the said compromise. It has further been stated that once the complainant himself admitted qua the statement suffered by Judgment Debtor No.3 on behalf of Judgment Debtor No.1, he cannot be permitted at this belated stage to implead Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 in the array of judgment debtors. It has further been stated that Judgment Debtor No.5 (Subrato Roy) is neither Chairman/Managing Director nor any authorized authority of Judgment Debtor No.1 – Society. It has further been stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from Judgment Debtors No.4 and 5.

3]             The Decree Holder filed replies to the aforesaid applications/objections wherein it has been stated that Judgment Debtor No.1 has no locus standi to file any objections on behalf of Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5. It has further been stated that in execution proceedings, all the judgment debtors are accused against whom process has been issued. It has further been stated that the concern of Judgment Debtor No.1 for Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 itself shows the master-servant relationship between them thereby making Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 vicariously liable. It has further been stated that it was for Judgment Debtor No.1 or say Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 to raise objection before passing of the decretal order dated 17.02.2020 in terms of compromise deed. It has further been stated that it is settled law that the executing court must take the decree as it stands and execute according to its terms and it has no power to vary or modify the terms or to question its legality or correctness. It has further been stated that the judgment debtors were free to raise all such pleas when the complaint was pending, however, after passing of the decree, no such objections, as are raised by Judgment Debtor No.1 like non-existence of consumer-service provider relations, wrong misleading of parties, can be determined at the stage of execution. It has further been stated that judgment debtors N0.1 to 5 have not yet applied for bail and have not yet appeared before the Commission. It has further been stated that once the warrants were issued against the accused, the first step was to appear before the Commission in person and pray for grant of bail. It has further been stated that instead of appearing before the Commission, the accused are hiding and are appearing through their Counsel. It has further been stated that  when the Judgment Debtors failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise deed, this Commission while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 issued the bailable warrants against the accused and thus, the present complaint is no longer the civil matter.

4]             It has further been stated that both Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 were party to the complaint as Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 and once the decree is already passed, the judgment debtors are stopped from raising any such objection. It has further been stated that the present case is duly covered by the maxim “Allegans contraria non-est Audiendus” i.e. a person adducing to the contrary is not to be heard. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the applications and rejection of objections filed to the execution application has been made.

5]             After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid miscellaneous applications bearing Nos.243 of 2022 & 244 of 2022 and the objections filed to the execution application deserves rejection for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2019 was disposed of by this Commission in terms of Compromise Deed dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure C-6) vide order dated 17.02.2020, which reads thus:-

“MA/163/2020

          File of Consumer Complaint bearing No.154 of 2019, which is listed for 12.03.2020, is preponed and taken up today on this application bearing MA/162/2020 moved by the complainant for disposing of the complaint in terms of compromise deed dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure C-6) annexed with the complaint.

          The said compromise deed is taken on record of complaint file. This application stands disposed of accordingly. It be tagged with the complaint file.

CC/154/2020

          Both Sh. Sohan Marwaha @ Sohan Lal Marwaha, complainant in person and Sh. Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager Worker (Authorised Signatory) of the Opposite parties has suffered a separate statement in Court that a compromise has been effected between the parties vide Compromise Deed dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure C-6) and they admit the signatures thereon. It is also stated that both the parties i.e. the complainant and the opposite parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the said Compromise Deed dated 24.01.2020 and decree be passed accordingly.

          In view of above, the complaint stands disposed of in the manner that Compromise Deed dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure C-6) shall form part of this order and both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the said compromise deed. It is made clear that liberty shall remain with the complainant to file an execution application in case the opposite parties failed to honour the terms and conditions of the compromise deed and the order passed.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.”

6]             In the execution application, it has been stated that as per the Compromise Deed dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure E-1), the Judgment Debtors agreed to pay the sum of Rs.59,76,103/- i.e. (Rs.14,95,988 + Rs.44,80,115) to the Decree Holder. It has further been stated that Judgment Debtor No.1 through Judgment Debtor No.3 paid a sum of Rs.14,95,988/- vide cheque No.011052 dated 23.01.2020 and the remaining sum of Rs.44,80,115/- was to be paid on or before 20.07.2021. It has further been stated that it was also agreed that if the Judgment Debtors have failed to pay the sum of Rs.44,80,115/-, then they shall pay interest @10.50% per annum w.e.f. 21.07.2021. It has further been stated that the said interest comes out to Rs.1,288/- per day. It has further been stated that the judgment debtors have not made the payment and failed to comply with the order till date.

7]             It may be stated here that the compromise had taken place during the pendency of the complaint and till such time, the opposite parties (Judgment Debtors) had not filed their written statement. They settled the dispute and qua the said settlement, a joint statement was also suffered by the complainant, on one hand, and the opposite parties through opposite Party No.3 (Anil Kumar) on the other hand.

8]             Till passing of the decretal order dated 17.02.2020, the judgment debtors did not raise any objection with regard to opposite parties No.4 & 5, as has been taken at the execution stage by moving aforesaid applications and by way of filing objections to the execution application. Not even a single document has been placed on record by Judgment Debtor No.1 on record of execution file to establish that Judgment Debtor No.5, namely, Sh. Subrato Roy is not the Chairman/Managing Director of Judgment Debtor No.1 – Society. The further plea that statement qua compromise was suffered by Judgment Debtor No.3 (Sh. Anil Kumar) only on behalf of Judgment Debtor No.1 – Society and Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 were not associated therein, has no legs to stand in view of the admitted position on record that the said statement was suffered by Judgment Debtor No.3 in the capacity of authorized signatory of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited – Opposite parties. Now, at a belated stage, the judgment debtors cannot be heard to say that the opposite parties No.4 & 5/Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 have nothing to do with the said statement and the Compromise Deed. Once they were there as opposite parties No.4 & 5 in the complaint and are at the helms of the Society/Sahara India, they are also equally liable for the acts of omission and commission on the part of the Society. Not only this, all the opposite parties were represented by same Counsel in the complaint. Had it been so that Judgment Debtor No.5/Opposite Party No.5 was not the Chairman/Managing Director of Judgment Debtor No.1 – Society, he would have been represented by different Counsel or would have raised objection in that regard. We feel that the interest of all the opposite parties in consumer complaint was the same and therefore, they chose to be represented jointly. However, they chose not to contest the complaint and rather settled the dispute by way of Compromise Deed.

9]             Not only above, we agree with the contention raised on behalf of the decree holder that Judgment Debtor No.1 has no locus standi to file any objections on behalf of Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5. It was for Judgment Debtors No.4 & 5 to come forward and plead so and prove the same on record by leading some cogent and convincing evidence but they chose not to do so, which itself goes against them and gives an impression to this Commission that they are evading their appearance before this Commission though they are being represented by a Counsel. As on today, an amount of Rs.44,80,115/- alongwith interest @10.50% p.a. w.e.f. 21.07.2021, is payable by the judgment debtors to the decree holder. It may be added here that vide order dated 01.11.2021, a prime-facie case was made out against the judgment debtors for non-compliance of order dated 17.02.2020 passed in CC/154/2019 & the terms & conditions of the Compromise Deed dated 24.01.2020.

10]           For the reason recorded above, Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos.243 of 2022 & 244 of 2022 filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 are dismissed with no order as to costs. The objections filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 to the execution application also stands rejected.

11]           List on 03.08.2022 for further proceedings.

12]           Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13]           Copy of this order be also sent to the parties/Counsel through email/whatsapp.

Pronounced

19.07.2022.

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad