STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS vs VIJAJSHRI PRIVATE LIMITED

THE complainant filed a complaint for refund of the amount deposited by them for purchasing the car. THE detailed facts of the case may be seen in the order of the District Forum. THE complaint was allowed by it against the Opp. Party, which has come up in appeal to the Commission.

THE only contention of Mr. Rao, is that the appellant has been declared on a sick unit and it is now governed by the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, referred to as Sick Act. According to Section 22 (3) of the Act the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R) vide order dated 27th Jan, 1993 has issued an order suspending operation of all contracts, agreement to which the company was a party. After the said notification was issued no legal right can be enforced against it. In support of his contention he places reliance on a decision of the National Commission in M/s. Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. v. Athithan and Others (1st appeal No. 108 of 1991 decided on 11th March, 1993). We have duly considered the argument and find force therein. It is not necessary to dilate upon this matter, because it stands concluded by the decision of the National Commission in Standard Motor''s Case (supra). It is observed therein that when the Scheme was under consideration and the BIFR had issued the necessary declaration, which was inforce at the time the complaint was entertained and disposed of, the State Commission could not take notice of the suspended contract nor could pass an order about the refund of the advance in anticipation of the declaration of the BIFR coming to an end. Under Clause (b) of Sub-section 4 of Section 22 of the Sick Act any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities so remaining suspended or modified, shall become revived and enforceable only on the cessation of the declaration. It is further observed that in view of the said circumstances the order of the State Commission as far as it relates to the directive issued against the Opp. Party/Appellant cannot be upheld. The above observations are fully applicable to the present case.

An appeal is a continuation of a complaint and the above notification though published after the decision of the complaint, can be taken into consideration by the Commission. It may also be mentioned that at the time the complaint was pending in the District Forum another similar order dated 7.4.92 was in force. However, the Forum, did not take that into consideration on the ground, that an order under the Sick Act did not apply to the proceedings filed under the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the latest pronouncement of the National Commission in Standard Motors case (supra) the finding of the Forum is liable to be set aside.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the District FORum and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Complaint allowed.