RAJ KUMAR GOYAL vs KAMAL CHAUDHARY

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 493/2013 - Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Kamal Chaduhary & 4 Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum directing issuance of warrants of arrest was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 filed complaint before District Forum against OPs -Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund deposited amount to the complainant along with interest. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, revision petition was filed by petitioners before this Commission. This Commission passed following order on 17.8.2012: "Heard.

Issue notice of application for stay to the respondents returnable on 21.11.2012, the date already fixed.

In the meanwhile, operation of impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the petitioner''s depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the District Forum, within four weeks, in each case.

On receipt of the said amount, the District Forum shall put the same in Fixed Deposit Account in a nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year".

As petitioners did not deposit 50% of the awarded amount within 4 weeks with the District Forum, District Forum in Execution Petition issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Appeals filed by petitioners were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

PRESENCE of Respondent No. 2 to 4 was not required.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners deposited their share of amount as per orders of this Commission, even then, learned District Forum committed error in issuing warrants of arrest and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of main order of District Forum reveals that complaint was accepted against all OP No. 1 to 5 and they were directed to refund amount with interest against which, revision petitions are pending before this Commission and this Commission stayed operation of order subject to depositing 50% of the awarded amount with District Forum.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have deposited their 1/5th share with interest; even then, learned District Forum issued warrants of arrest as not deposited 50% of the entire amount whereas, petitioners were not required to deposit 50% of the entire amount awarded by District Forum. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent is entitled to recover full amount from any OP and OP/Petitioners were required to deposit 50% of the entire amount awarded by District Forum. Perusal of main order of District Forum reveals that OPs have not been held responsible jointly & severally and in such circumstances, complainant cannot recover whole awarded amount from any of the five OP and he is entitled to recover only 1/5th share of the awarded amount from each of the OP. In such circumstances, in the light of order of this Commission, petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the amount with interest only to the extent of his share i.e. 1/5th, which was to be paid by him to the complainant. Learned State Commission erroneously observed that full amount can be recovered from any of the OPs and committed error in dismissing appeal; even though, petitioners had deposited 50% of the amount which was required to be paid by them. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any law in support of his contention that even if OP is not held liable jointly and severally, complainant can recover full amount from any of the OPs. In such circumstances, petitioners were under an obligation to deposit 50% amount only of their liability.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have deposited 1/5th share of their liability with interest, but it appears that they have deposited amount after deducting Rs. 25,000/ - which they have deposited before State Commission. Amount of Rs. 25,000/ -, i.e. statutory amount for filing appeal cannot be deducted from the share to be deposited with District Forum for operation of stay order and in such circumstances, petitioners are bound to deposit 1/5th share of their liability without deducting Rs. 25,000/ - for getting benefit of stay order.

CONSEQUENT LY , Revision Petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and orders dated 18.11.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 493/2013 - Raj Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. Kamal Chaduhary & 4 Ors. and order of District Forum dated 23.10.2013 are set aside and District Forum is directed to withdraw warrants of arrest issued against petitioners if petitioners deposit remaining amount making i.e. 1/5th share within two weeks with the District Forum in each case from the date of pronouncement of the order.