An error in procedure
makes an order Null &Void
Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Forum reversed
an order made by the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Consumer Forum, which had
sentenced Ritu Maheshwari, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), to one month in prison.
Maheshwari was found guilty of not complying with a directive issued by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2014.
Observation;
It was observed by State Commission that District Commission's order
"defective" because it failed to give GNIDA an opportunity to present
its side of the case. Consumer Commissions to follow the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when exercising powers under Section 27 of the
Consumer Protection Act. I.e. issue notice, after notice bailable warrants, non-boilable
warrants and then declaring absconding &punishment
Case title: Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority vs Mahesh Mitra
Appeal Execution Application No. AEA/1/2023
Decided on 24 June 2023
Other similar case of resulting into dismissal of complaint:
It’s
the most painful thing for a consumer who wins the case after putting all
efforts, energy and time and it becomes null and void due to an error in understanding
the real person who is to be punished. It happened with a complainant in the
matter of H.K. Singla vs. Avtar Singh Saini & Ors.Decided On 14th
December 2018 who had filed a complaint against
secretary Chandigarh State Bank of Patiala Employees Co-operative USE
Thrift & Credit Society, claiming maturity amount along with interest on
his deposit with the Society
As
per the practice under law, in cases of suits/claims/complaints filed by the corporate,
authorities or units, they are to be filed through name and person authorized
by the authority under the document of power of attorney to sign the documents
etc. Further it needs to be supported by resolution passed in an individual’s
favour to deal with specific case by virtue of holding power of attorney from
the authority.
Facts:
1. District
consumer court passed an order in favour of consumer directing the society to
pay the maturity amount with interest @10% per annum along with compensation to
the tune of rupees ten thousand to the complainant
2. Since
society had gone in liquidation ,they went in appeal before the state
commission .State commission Chandigarh dismissed the appeal finding no error
in the district consumer forum order &order is to be complied
3. Now
complainants comes back to the consumer forum for execution of the order under
section 27 of the act .and District forum in the absence of payment of decrial
amount, orders two years imprisonment and rupees 5000/- fine .
4. Aggrieved
by this order, respondent again goes to the State commission for staying the
order of imprisonment. State commission passed an interim order staying the
operation of order of imprisonment subject to payment of decrial amount within
eight weeks.
5.
Defendants failed to comply this order also and
they filed appeal against the order of State commission before the National
commission .National commission confirmed all the orders of lower courts below
dated 08.11.2012 passed in First Appeal Nos.652/12; 653/12; 654-656/12; 657/12
It was held by the National Commission that district forum rightly ordered for
imprisonment under section 27 of the act for non-compliance of its order, State
commission rightly gave an opportunity to the opposite party to pay the decrial
amount within specific period and conditionally stayed the operation of
imprisonment. With this observation, National Commission dismissed the appeal
holding all orders passed by the lower commissions correct
6. Supreme
Court as the case H.K. Singla Vs. Avtar Singh Saini & Ors.[Civil
Appeal No. 11969 of 2018 Decided On 14th December 2018
a) District
court in its order fixed the liability of secretary, Chandigarh State Bank of
Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit Society, to repay the
deposited amount with interest to the complainant but did not make secretary
liable in his individual capacity. Hence he could not be imprisoned under
section 27 of the act in the absence of he made party by name or on behalf of
society fixing personal liability.
b) State
commission while staying the order of imprisonment in 2013 with condition to
pay the decrial amount did nothing to correct the error though this interim
order continued from time to time. It was the State commission to decide there
and then as to whether any order for jail can be passed against the society for
non –compliance of the order
c) National
commission also did not interfere in the order passed below but did not specify
whom to send to jail under section 27 of the act
d) Under
the circumstances Supreme Court suspended the order of the district forum to
the extent of imprisonment of secretary of the society
e)
This is also observed that society has gone in
liquidation and liquidator has been appointed, complainant is given liberty to
take necessary steps to recover the decrial amount as ordered by the district
court in accordance with law
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,