Supreme Court of India
H. K. SINGLA versus AVTAR SINGH SAINI & ORS. on 14 December 2018
H. K. SINGLA
v.
AVTAR SINGH SAINI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11969 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s. 27 – Penalties – On facts,allegation of the complainant that he had deposited the money withthe Employees Co-operative USE Thrift and Credit Society andSociety did not repay the amount with interest, as assured –Application u/s. 27 by the complainant against the appellant-Secretary of the society – District Forum passed an order ofimprisonment against the appellant – In appeal, the StateCommission passed an interim order staying the operation of theorder of the District Forum, subject to the appellant depositing theentire amount – Said order upheld by the National Commission –On appeal, held: No order was passed against the appellant by theDistrict Forum in its individual capacity – Appellant was shown asSecretary of the Society during the relevant period – Prima facie,for the default committed by the society, and in absence of anypersonal liability imposed on the appellant, no order forimprisonment u/s. 27 of the Act could be ordered against theappellant – On filing these appeals, interim order granting stay ofarrest was passed and the said order continued from time to time –Thus, the order of the District Forum to the extent of imprisonmentof the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal preferred bythe society before the State Commission, is suspended – StateCommission to consider the plea whether the appellant can beimprisoned or not in absence of any order by the District Forumimposing personal liability on the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11969of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2012 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First AppealNo. 657 of 2012.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11970-11972, 11973-11974 of 2018.
1223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AManoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Abhishek Swarup, Mahendrafor M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co., Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan KishoreSingh Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.B
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants, aggrieved by theorder dated 08.11.2012 passed in First Appeal Nos.652/12; 653/12; 654-656/12; 657/12 by the National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, New Delhi. For the sake convenience and brevity, thefacts of the appeal preferred against Appeal No.657/12 are being referredCto. The said appeal is preferred against the order passed by the StateCommission by way of interim order pending the appeal. These appealswere filed in the year 2013. At first instance, this Court has passedorders granting stay of arrest of the appellant herein on 22.03.2013 andthe said order continued from time to time.
D2. The appellant herein was Secretary of Chandigarh State Bankof Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit Society. Weare informed that the said society is in liquidation and a liquidator isappointed. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the DistrictForum and the society was directed to pay the maturity amountalong with the interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the award ofERs.10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5000/- by way of costs.Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, it appears that the societyhas preferred appeal before the State Commission and the order of theDistrict Forum was upheld and appeal was dismissed by imposing thecosts of Rs.5000/- and the said order of the appellate forum has becomefinal.F
3. Alleging that the society has not paid the maturity amount alongwith the interest as ordered by the District Forum, the first respondentherein has approched the Distrct Forum by way of application underSection 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forumsentenced the appellant herein to two years’ simple imprisonment andGimposed a fine of Rs.5000/-. It was further ordered that in case offailure to deposit the fine, appellant has to undergo further simpleimprisonment for a period of three months.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum under Section 27of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appellant herein has preferredHappeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed interim orders, subject to condition of depositing the entire amount asordered by the District Forum within a period of eight weeks from thedate of passing of the order.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, at first instancethe society has filed a Revision Petition before the National Commissionand the said Revision Petition was subsequently withdrawn by seekingliberty to file the appeal. After withdrawal of the Revision Petition, theappeals were filed and the said appeals were dismissed by commonorder dated 08.11.2012. The operative portion of the order passed bythe National Commission reads as under:
“Appellant had shown his inability to pay the decretal amount.Under the circumstances, the District Forum convicted theappellant and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment of two years.Appellant filed the appeal before the State Commission. StateCommission by an interim order stayed operation of the order ofthe District Forum subject to deposit of the entire decreetal amount.We do not find any infirmity in the interim order passed by theState Commission. The decree passed against the appellantattained finality. Under the circumstances, District Forum underSection 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had no other optionother than to convict the appellant. The State Commission hasrightly stayed the operation of the impugned order subject to depositof the entire decretal amount. Dismissed.”
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and thefirst respondent and perused the counter affidavit and rejoinder and othermaterial placed on record.
7. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 empowersthe District Forum, State Commission, National Commission to imposethe penalties. It empowers the authorities to pass an order to punish aperson with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than onemonth but which may extend to three years or with a fine, in case atrader or a person against whom the complaint is made, fails or omits tocomply with any order passed by the authorities.
8. In this case, it is to be noticed that it is the allegation of therespondent/complainant, that he had deposited the money with the societyand society had not repaid the amount with interest, as assured. Theapplication under Section 27 is filed by showing the appellant as Secretaryof the society. When the order of imprisonment was passed by the District A
B
CDE
F
G
H
1226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AForum, the appellant herein has filed appeal before the State Commission.It appears from the record that when he sought interim relief before theState Commission, State Commission has passed the interim ordergranting stay, subject to condition of depositing the entire amount. Inview of the condition imposed, the appellant approached the NationalCommission by way of appeal which is dismissed by impugned order.B
9. In this appeal, it is to be noticed that there is no order passedagainst the appellant herein by the District Forum in its individual capacity.The appellant was shown as Secretary of the Society during the relevantperiod. For the default committed by the society, and in absence of anypersonal liability imposed on the appellant, the appellant is to be imprisonedCunder Section 27 of the Act is doubtful. In view of the pendency of theappeal filed before the State Commission, we do not wish to record anydefinite finding on the same. Prima facie, we are of the view that forthe default committed by the society no order for imprisonment can beordered against the appellant herein. On filing these appeals in the yearD2013, this Court has passed interim order granting stay of arrest and thesaid order continued from time to time.
10. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose ofthese appeals by suspending the order of the District Forum to the extentof imprisonment of the appellant herein, during the pendency of the appealpreferred by the society before the State Commission. It is open to theEState Commission to consider the plea whether the appellant can beimprisoned or not in absence of any order by the District Forum imposingpersonal liability on the appellant. As appeals are of 2012, we requestthe State Commission to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible.
11. As we are informed that society is in liquidation and a liquidatorFis appointed, we keep it open to the first respondent to take necessarysteps in accordance with law to recover the amount, which is ordered tobe paid by the District Forum.
12. All these appeals are disposed of with the directions asindicated above, with no order as to costs.G
Nidhi Jain
Appeals disposed of.
H