Sh. Sukhdev Singh. vs Sh. Janak Raj. & Ors. on 13 September, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
M.A. No. : 562/2019
M.A. No. : 544/2019
M.A. No. : 563/2019
Revision Petition: 64/2019
Date of Presentation: 04.09.2019
Date of Order : 13.09.2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sukhdev Singh son of Shri Munshi Ram resident of Village Ghati-
Bilwan Tehsil Jaswan Kangra-H.P in representative capacity on
behalf of members of the Ghati-Bilwan Co-operative Agricultural
Services Society Ltd. VPO Ghati-Bilwan Tehsil Jaswan District
Kangra-H.P.
...... Revisionist
Versus
1. Janak Raj son of Shri Lachman Dass R/o Village Nari P.O.
Ghati-Bilwan Tehsil Jaswan District Kangra-H.P.
2. The Ghati Bilwan Cooperative Agriculture Service Society
Ltd. Village and Post Office Ghati Bilwan Tehsil Jaswan
District Kangra H.P through its Administrative Vijay
Kumar.
3. Additional Registrar Cooperative Society Dharamshala
District Kangra H.P.
4. Registrar Cooperative Societies Himachal Pradesh Shimla.
5. Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Dehra District
Kanga H.P.
......Non-revisionists
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma Member Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For revisionist : Mr. Anup Rattan Advocate.
For Non-revisionists : None.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
Order upon admission :-
1. Present order shall dispose of M.A. No.562/2019, M.A. No.544/2019, M.A. No.563/2019 and R.P. No.64/2019 filed against interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by learned Executing Commission in execution application 16/2018 titled Janak Raj Versus Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. & Ors.
Brief facts of matter :-
2. Shri Janak Raj filed consumer complaint No.30/2017 before Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) Kangra at Dharamshala titled Janak Raj Versus The Ghati Bilwan Co-
operative Agriculture Service Society which was disposed of by Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) on dated 05.09.2017. Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) ordered that Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society through its Administrator, Assistant Registrar, Additional Registrar and Registrar would pay maturity Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
amount of FDRs No.454, 457 & 458 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date maturity till payment. Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) further ordered that Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society would pay an amount of Rs.927919.56 (Nine lacs twenty seven thousand nine hundred nineteen & fifty six paise) (Deposited in saving account No.1696) to complainant alongwith admissible rate of interest as applicable to saving bank account from date of filing of complaint till payment. Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) further ordered that Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society would pay amount of FDR No.487, 449 & 621 alongwith proportionate interest from the date of complaint till payment.
3. Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) further ordered that complainant would be entitled to costs to the tune of Rs.10000/- for mental harassment and would be entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/-. Order passed by Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
Protection Act 2019) became final and attained stage of finality.
4. Thereafter executant/complainant namely Shri Janak Raj filed execution application No.16/2018 under section 25(3) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and under corresponding section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 which came into operation vide central Gazette notification on dated 09.08.2019. Learned District Executing Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Executing Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) passed interim order on dated 15.02.2019 in execution proceedings.
5. Feeling aggrieved against interim order passed by learned District Executing Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Executing Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) revisionist namely Sh. Sukhdev Singh who was not co-party in original consumer complaint as intervener in representative capacity on behalf of members of Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. filed present revision petition before State Commission. Revisionist also filed M.A. No.544/2019 for staying proceeding of learned District Executing Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Executing Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019). Revision also filed M.A. No.562/2019 for condonation of delay of 111 days in Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
filing revision petition. Revisionist also field M.A. No.563/2019 for conversion of revision petition into appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned counsel for revisionist and also perused the entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revision petition or appeal is maintainable before State Commission against interim order passed by learned Executing Commission in execution proceedings under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 in view of ruling announced by Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in 2019(3) CPJ 21 Apex Court DB titled Karnataka Housing Board Versus K.A. Nagamani and whether Sukhdev Singh who was not co-party in original consumer complaint No.30/2017 has locus standi to file revision or appeal before State Commission.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that Sukhdev Singh intervener who was not co-party in original consumer complaint No.30/2017 is legally competent to file revision and appeal qua interim execution proceedings before State Commission and present revision petition be converted into appeal and further Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
submission of learned Advocate that as per section 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 appeal against interim order of District Executing Commission is maintainable before State Commission is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused section 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 relates to jurisdiction of State Commission.
9. State Commission is of the opinion that State Commission has jurisdiction in the following matters (1) Original consumer complaints (2) Appeals against original findings passed by Learned District Consumer Commission under Section 39 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 (3) Revision against interim order passed in consumer dispute only.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case reported in 2019(3) CPJ 21 Apex Court DB titled Karnataka Housing Board Versus K.A. Nagamani held that execution proceedings are not continuation of consumer complaint proceedings and Hon'ble Apex Court of India held in ruling cited supra that execution proceedings does not fall within concept of consumer dispute. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that no revision lies against interim or final order passed by learned District Executing Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Executing Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019).
Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
11. Final order passed by Learned District Consumer Commission could be executed under Section 71 and 72 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 orders of Learned District Consumer Commission could be enforced as per provision of Order XXI of First schedule of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to modification that every reference therein to the decree shall be construed as reference to the order made under Consumer Protection Act 2019.
12. State Commission is of the opinion that there is no provision of appeal or revision under Consumer Protection Act 2019 against interim order or final order passed by Learned District Executing Commission under Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
13. It is well settled law that Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a Special Act enacted by Parliament of India in order to protect interest of consumers. State Commission is of the opinion that general provisions of revision and appeal would not be operative in execution proceedings initiated under Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that proceedings of learned District Executing Commission would be governed under Special Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act 2019 only. As per Section 107 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 Consumer Protection Act 1986 stood repealed after assent of President of India and notified Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
in official gazette of Central Government of India on dated 09.08.2019.
14. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between special Act and general Act then Special Act always prevail over general Act. State Commission is of the opinion that word appeal against the order of any District Commission within the State mentioned in Section 47 (1)
(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 would mean appeal against findings of District Commission under Section 39 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. It is held that interim order passed by learned District Executing Commission could not be challenged before State Commission by way of revision or appeal in view of ruling announced by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case reported in 2019(3) CPJ 21 Apex Court DB titled Karnataka Housing Board Versus K.A. Nagamani.
15. State Commission is of the opinion that word appeal against the order of any District Consumer Commission within the State has been mentioned under section 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and appeal against any order of any District Consumer Commission has not been mentioned. State Commission is of the opinion that Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 covers only three types of matter (1) Original consumer complaints which could be filed before State Commission on original pecuniary jurisdiction (2) Original appeals which could be filed before Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
State Commission against findings of District Commission under Section 39 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 (3) Original revision petitions against interim order passed by Learned District Consumer Commission in consumer disputes qua original consumer complaints only.
16. Consumer dispute has been defined in Section 2(8) of new Consumer Protection Act 2019 which means dispute where person against whom original consumer complaint has been made and opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the original consumer complaint. State Commission is of the opinion that any interim order passed by learned District Executing Commission in execution proceedings is not consumer dispute in original consumer complaint as held by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in ruling cited supra. It is held that execution proceedings are independent proceedings and does not fall within definition of consumer dispute. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that appeal or revision before State Commission is not maintainable against interim order passed by learned Executing Commission under Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
17. Consumer Protection Act 2019 has been passed by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and received assent of Hon'ble President of India on 09.08.2019. Consumer Protection Act 2019 has been notified in gazette of Central Government of Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
India on 09.08.2019. As per Constitution of India Act came into operation when Act received assent of Hon'ble President of India and when Act is notified in official Gazette of Central Govt. of India. As per Article 366 (19) of Constitution of India public notification means notification in the Gazette of India.
18. State Commission is of the opinion that word Central Govt. may by notification appoint mentioned in section 1(3) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 would mean appointment of date of notification of Act in official Gazette of Central Govt. of India w.e.f. 09.08.2019. State Commission is of the opinion that Central Govt. may appoint different dates for different States mentioned in Section 1(3) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is only discretionary in nature and not mandatory provision for Central Govt. It is well settled law that word may and shall are different concepts under law. State Commission is of the opinion that Central Govt. has exercised may discretion to notify Consumer Protection Act 2019 in uniform manner throughout India on dated 09.08.2019 except J&K and repealed Consumer Protection Act 1986 vide Section 107 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by way of publication in official gazette of India on dated 09.08.2019.
19. It is held that as per Oxford dictionary meaning "The order" means definite section of appeals already mentioned in Consumer Protection Act 2019. It is held that Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
Section 47 (1) (a) (iii) refers to appeals against orders passed by Ld.District Consumer Commission under Section 39 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and does not relate to interim order passed by learned District Executing Commission under Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 in execution proceedings. Present order is passed by Ld. Executing Commission under Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
20. It is held that Sukhdev Singh was not co-party in original consumer complaint No.30/2017. It is held that Sukhdev Singh has no locus standi to file appeal or revision before State Commission because no order has been passed against Sukhdev Singh in original consumer complaint No.30/2017 in personal capacity and Sukhdev Singh being member of Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society is governed under independent Statutory Act i.e. Society Act and liabilities of Sukh Dev and other members of Society are governed under Society Act and bye laws of Society only qua liability of Ghati Bilwan Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
21. In view of findings upon point No.1 above M.A. No.562/2019, M.A. No.544/2019, M.A. No.563/2019 and R.P.No.64/2019 are dismissed in limine. Original order passed in original consumer complaint No.30/2017 decided Sukhdev Singh Versus Janak Raj & Ors.
on 05.09.2017 titled Janak Raj Versus Ghati Bilwan Co- operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. shall form part and parcel of order.
22. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Executing Commission forthwith for information. Certified copy of order be sent to parties free of costs forthwith as per rules. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. R.P. No.64/2019, M.A. No.544/2019, M.A. No.562/2019 and M.A No.563/2019 are disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 13.09.2019 K.D *
No comments:
Post a Comment