Padma Pandey, Member:
1. This Execution Application has been filed by the complainant/Decree Holder, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only) for enforcement of the order dated 26.11.2013, passed by this Commission, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.63 of 2013, tilted as œLalit Kumar Dhiman Vs. M/s Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another vide which the Opposite Parties/judgments debtors were directed as under:
œ9. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
i. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.21,60,120/-, to the complainant, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant.
iii. In case the payment of amount, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay the said amount, with interest @9% per annum, from the date of deposit till realization besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
10. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge."
2. In the Execution Application, the complainant/ decree holder stated that, in order to enforce the order under execution, a letter dated 16.12.2013 alongwith a copy of the same(order) through registered post, with a further request to make the payment, in terms thereof, was sent, but both the letters were received back with the remarks œunclaimed?. It was further stated that after receiving back the letters, aforesaid, the complainant/decree holder, searched the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and found that the Directors of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, were the same and their address was œHouse # 12, Club Enclave, Barewal Road, Ludhiana (Pb.)-141012. It was further stated that the period of 30 days had already lapsed, but no amount whatsoever, in any shape, or manner, was made to the complainant/decree holder, by the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors. It was further stated that there was no stay from any court of law with regard to the order under execution, passed by this Commission. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors be directed to pay the amount, in terms of the order dated 26.11.2013 and, in the event of non-compliance, proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) be initiated against them.
3. On the basis of calculation sheet, submitted by the office of this Commission, it was found that a sum of Rs.26,37,236.51 Ps was due upto 30.04.2014.
4. Show Cause Notices, under Section 27 of the Act, issued to Mrs.Paramjot Kaur and Mr.Tejinder Singh, Directors of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors for 30.04.2014, were received back with the report œrefusal?. Refusal was a good service. However, despite service, neither they nor any duly authorized representative, on their behalf, came present, either to make payment, or to show cause, why they should not be tried in a summary manner, and punished for non-compliance or failure/ omission to comply with the order dated 26.11.2013. They were accordingly proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.04.2014.
5. The complainant/decree holder filed his duly sworn affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the execution application.
6. Non-appearance of the Directors of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, despite due service, showed that they willfully and intentionally disobeyed the orders, and had nothing to say against the passing of sentence.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the decree holder/complainant, and have gone through the record, of the case, carefully.
8. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus Vishwa Bharathi House Building Coop Society and Others, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412 that Section 27 of the Act, is akin to Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC or the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, or Section 51 read with Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. In this manner, the personal appearance of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, was not necessary, in a case under Section 27 of the Act, when show cause notices were duly served upon them, but they did not come present.
9. In State of Karnataka Versus Parmjit Singh and Others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 49, it was held by the Honble Apex Court, that the District Forum or the State/National Commission shall be deemed to have the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, for trial of offences, under the Act.
10. In P.Dinakaran Versus Janak Raj Chopra and others, 2006(2) CPC 657, the Honble Apex Court of India, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, upheld the order, vide which the appellant was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, for non-compliance of the order.
11. In Ranbir Singh Versus M/s Saini Cold Store and Ice Factory and another, 1997 (2) CPC 514, it was held by the Punjab State Commission, that if the Opposite Party, failed to comply with the original order, he was liable to be punished.
12. In M/s Golden Forest (India) Ltd. Versus Satwinder Bedi, 2002 (2) CPC 536, the Punjab State Commission, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner held that, it was bound by its order in case of M/s Wheel World Vs. Jagjit Singh Kang and another, 1999(1) CLT 507, in which it was held that the applicability of Section 27 of the Act was not dependent upon the proceedings, under Section 25 of the Act, and independent resort could be had to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, and that the District Forum was right, in passing the order, awarding sentence to the petitioner.
13. The order dated 26.11.2013, has not been intentionally and deliberately complied with, despite the fact, that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Directors of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors. On the other hand, they with impunity, evaded the process of the Commission, not only in the Consumer Complaint, but also in this Criminal Complaint/Execution Application, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte. This amounts to contumacious defiance of the order dated 26.11.2013, on the part of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors. Since the date of passing the order dated 26.11.2013, the complainant/decree holder, has always been under the impression that the said amount would be retrieved to him, but his efforts have not borne any fruits. On the other hand, his travails seem to be unending. Notwithstanding the fact, that a period of about more than 5 months, from the date of passing the order dated 26.11.2013, has lapsed, and there is no stay order from the National Commission or from any competent Court of law, the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, have failed to pay even a single pie, to the complainant/decree holder, though an amount of Rs.26,37,236.51 Ps, awarded was due to them, as on 30.04.2014. The complainant/decree holder, shall, however, be entitled to interest @ 9% P.A. on the aforesaid amount, till realization.
14. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, the Apex Court observed as under:-
œCourts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law`s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system?
15. In view of what has been discussed above, the Execution Application is accepted with no order as to costs. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, contumacious defiance of the order dated 26.11.2013, with impunity, by Mrs.Paramjot Kaur and Mr.Tejinder Singh, Directors of M/s Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sukhm Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Parties/JDs-Companies), and considering the fact that faith of the Consumers, is not shattered, in the Consumer Foras, set up for speedy redressal of grievances, they do not deserve any leniency, in the matter of imposition of sentence. Mrs.Paramjot Kaur and Mr.Tejinder Singh, Directors of M/s Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sukhm Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Parties/JDs-Companies), are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months each.
16. Non-bailable warrants of Mrs.Paramjot Kaur and Mr.Tejinder Singh, Directors of M/s Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sukhm Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Parties/JDs-Companies), returnable for 12.06.2014, be issued, for their arrest, and detention in Jail, to undergo sentence, awarded to them, as also payment of fine.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.