AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Execution Appeal has been filed by the Judgement Debtors in Complaint Case No. CC/76/2016, against the order dated 20.12.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Execution Application No.107/2016. By the said order, while directing the Judgement Debtors, namely, Hind Motors India Ltd. and Hind Motors Ltd., to pay a fine of 10,000/- to the Decree-holder for defying its order dated 17.8.2016 with impunity, the State Commission has issued non-bailable warrants against the Managing Directors of the said Companies, returnable on 2.1.2017 for undergoing simple imprisonment for a period of two years for defying the aforesaid final order.
On a pointed query by us to the learned Senior Counsel, as to whether the Appellants are still willing to comply with the directions issued by the State Commission vide its order dated 17.8.2016 passed in the afore-noted Complaint, learned Counsel submits that as per his instructions, because of financial constraints, the said Companies or their Managing Directors are not in a position to comply with the said order, more so, when a demand draft for deposit of 50% of the decretal amount in this Commission in terms of order dated 11.11.2016 in FA/1248/2016, has been got prepared.
In light of the afore-stated stand of the Appellants, before us, no fault can be found with the impugned order, wherein the Executing Court has observed that its order is being defied with impunity. It is also pertinent to note that when the Appeal preferred by the Appellants (FA/1248/2016), challenging the order dated 17.8.2016, came up for motion hearing on 11.11.2016, while issuing notice to the Complainant, it was directed that subject to the Appellants'' depositing in this Commission 50% of the amount, as awarded by the State Commission in the order impugned in the Appeal, within four weeks from the date of the said order, the recovery of the balance amount shall remain stayed. It was, however, made clear that if the requisite deposit is not made within the aforesaid time, the ad-interim stay shall stand vacated and it will be open to the Complainant to pursue her remedy, as may be available to her for enforcement of the said order. Admittedly, the requisite deposit in terms of the said order was not made within the time granted though an application for extension of time is stated to have been filed. That being so, the ad-interim stay granted on 11.11.2016 automatically stood vacated because of default on the part of the Appellants in making the requisite deposit within the time granted. In light of the said factual scenario, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned order suffers from legal or factual infirmity, warranting our interference.
Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.