District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh

Execution Application NO. 51  OF  2018

in CC/229/2015

BEFORE:

          RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

          SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

PRESENT:

None for Complainant.

Dated : 5^th June 2018

ORDER

1.        Perusal of the record shows, complainant has moved the present complaint/execution under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the prayer, order dated 05.06.2017 passed by this Forum has not been complied with by accused persons i.e. Chief Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited and HDFC Bank Ltd. Perusal of the record further shows, this Forum has issued a direction to Opposite Party/Accused No.1-Chief Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited to issue a fresh statement of accounts to the complainant by reversing all the charges, with cumulative effect, which are not leviable/chargeable and are not part & parcel of the policy, and to pay the same to the complainant; to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.        It appears, appeal against this order was preferred before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, which was dismissed. It is pertinent to note here against Opposite Party No.2-HDFC Bank Limited, complaint was dismissed by this Forum which order has allegedly confirmed in appeal by the Hon’ble State Commission. Inspite of this, complainant even prayed that HDFC Bank Ltd. be also tried for offence under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are not able to understand when the complaint was dismissed against HDFC Bank Ltd., what order is to be complied by opposite party/accused No.2 and question of its non compliance does not arise when the complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed.

3.        Perusal of the record further shows, by post this Forum has received a copy of the revision petition No.1096 of 2018 which shows that complainant has carried out matter to Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being not satisfied with the order passed by this Forum as well as Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh and prayed for its modification in the manner as alleged in the revision petition. This itself shows, order of this Forum is not yet final as matter is pending in revision before the Hon’ble National Commission. Filing of revision petition means complainant does say this order has not become final or say executable. In case titled as ‘Maytas Properties Limited vs. A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in AIR 2013 AP 93, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under:-

     “Therefore, the penal proceedings under Section 27   cannot be allowed to be taken recourse to even before     the order of the District Forum or State/National      Commission attains finality merely on the ground that   the Act provides for speedy and simple redressal to      consumer disputes. Thus, section 27 can be taken     recourse to only by way of last resort after the order attains finality as provided under Section 24 of the Act. Penal proceedings under section 27 of the Act      cannot be entertained while an appeal is pending     before the National Commission against the order of   State Commission.”   

4.        Therefore, this complaint/execution is premature and rejected. Complainant is left at liberty to file a fresh complaint/execution after the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

5.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost. The file be consigned.