H.K.Singla vs Avtar Singh Saini

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11969 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.17357 of 2013]

H.K. Singla ... Appellant

Versus

Avtar Singh Saini & Ors. ... Respondents

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11970-11972 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.17360-17362 of 2013]

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11973-11974 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.17358-17359 of 2013]

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. These appeals are filed by the appellants, aggrieved

by the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in First Appeal

Nos.652/12; 653/12; 654-656/12; 657/12 by the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. For the

sake convenience and brevity, the facts of the appeal

1 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17357/2013

preferred against Appeal No.657/12 are being referred to.

The said appeal is preferred against the order passed by the

State Commission by way of interim order pending the appeal.

These appeals were filed in the year 2013. At first

instance, this Court has passed orders granting stay of

arrest of the appellant herein on 22.03.2013 and the said

order continued from time to time.

2. The appellant herein was Secretary of Chandigarh State

Bank of Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit

Society. We are informed that the said society is in

liquidation and a liquidator is appointed. The first

respondent herein filed a complaint before the District

Forum and the society was directed to pay the maturity

amount along with the interest @ 10% per annum in addition

to the award of Rs.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 society has preferred

appeal before the State Commission and the order of the

District Forum was upheld and appeal was dismissed by

imposing the costs of Rs.5000/- and the said order of the

appellate forum has become final.

2 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17357/2013

3. Alleging that the society has not paid the maturity

amount along with the interest as ordered by the District

Forum, the first respondent herein has approched the Distrct

Forum by way of application under Section 27 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum sentenced the

appellant herein to two years’ simple imprisonment and

imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-. It was further ordered that in

case of failure to deposit the fine, appellant has to

undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three

months.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum under

Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the

appellant herein has preferred appeal before the State

Commission and the State Commission has passed interim

orders, subject to condition of depositing the entire amount

as ordered by the District Forum within a period of eight

weeks from the date of passing of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, at

first instance the society has filed a Revision Petition

before the National Commission and the said Revision

Petition was subsequently withdrawn by seeking liberty to

3 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17357/2013

file the appeal. After withdrawal of the Revision Petition,

the appeals were filed and the said appeals were dismissed

by common order dated 08.11.2012. The operative portion of

the order passed by the National Commission reads as under:

“Appellant had shown his inability to pay the decretal amount. Under the circumstances, the District Forum convicted the appellant and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment of two years. Appellant filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission by an interim order stayed operation of the order of the District Forum subject to deposit of the entire decreetal amount. We do not find any infirmity in the interim order passed by the State Commission. The decree passed against the appellant attained finality. Under the circumstances, District Forum under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had no other option other than to convict the appellant. The State Commission has rightly stayed the operation of the impugned order subject to deposit of the entire decretal amount. Dismissed.”

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant

and the first respondent and perused the counter affidavit

and rejoinder and other material placed on record.

7. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

empowers the District Forum, State Commission, National

Commission to impose the penalties. It empowers the

authorities to pass an order to punish a person with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one

4 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17357/2013

month but which may extend to three years or with a fine, in

case a trader or a person against whom the complaint is

made, fails or omits to comply with any order passed by the

authorities.

8. In this case, it is to be noticed that it is the

allegation of the respondent/complainant, that he had

deposited the money with the society and society had not

repaid the amount with interest, as assured. The

application under Section 27 is filed by showing the

appellant as Secretary of the society. When the order of

imprisonment was passed by the District Forum, the appellant

herein has filed appeal before the State Commission. It

appears from the record that when he sought interim relief

before the State Commission, State Commission has passed the

interim order granting stay, subject to condition of

depositing the entire amount. In view of the condition

imposed, the appellant approached the National Commission by

way of appeal which is dismissed by impugned order.

9. In this appeal, it is to be noticed that there is no

order passed against the appellant herein by the District

Forum in its individual capacity. The appellant was shown

5 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17357/2013

as Secretary of the Society during the relevant period. For

the default committed by the society, and in absence of any

personal liability imposed on the appellant, the appellant

is to be imprisoned under Section 27 of the Act is doubtful.

In view of the pendency of the appeal filed before the State

Commission, we do not wish to record any definite finding on

the same. Prima facie, we are of the view that for the

default committed by the society no order for imprisonment

can be ordered against the appellant herein. On filing

these appeals in the year 2013, this Court has passed

interim order granting stay of arrest and the said order

continued from time to time.

10. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to

dispose of these appeals by suspending the order of the

District Forum to the extent of imprisonment of the

appellant herein, during the pendency of the appeal

preferred by the society before the State Commission. It is

open to the State Commission to consider the plea whether

the appellant can be imprisoned or not in absence of any

order by the District Forum imposing personal liability on

the appellant. As appeals are of 2012, we request the State

6 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17357/2013

Commission to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as

possible.

11. As we are informed that society is in liquidation and

a liquidator is appointed, we keep it open to the first

respondent to take necessary steps in accordance with law to

recover the amount, which is ordered to be paid by the

District Forum.

12. All these appeals are disposed of with the directions

as indicated above, with no order as to costs.

.................... J.

[Uday Umesh Lalit]

.................... J.

[R. Subhash Reddy] New Delhi December 14, 2018

7