Suresh Bhatia vs ASHA RANI W/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR

PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) and Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act) challenging order dated 17.11.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short as State Commission ). Vide impugned order, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission.

BRIEF facts are that respondent no.1/complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with respondent no.2 - Society and maturity date was 18.11.2009. Petitioner herein, is the President of said society. Due to financial problem, respondent no.1 requested petitioner and respondent nos.2 & 3, to encash the above said FDR. However, petitioner and respondents refused to pay the amount. This act of petitioner and respondent nos.2 & 3 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, complaint was filed with prayer to direct petitioner and respondent nos.2 & 3 to make the payment of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- as damages and interest on Rs.25,000/- besides litigation expenses, to respondent no.1. After notice, petitioner and respondent nos.2 & 3 appeared but no reply was filed by respondent no.2 and petitioner on various dates. Hence, defence for filing reply on behalf of respondent no.2 and petitioner was struck of on 13.5.2009.

Respondent no.3, in its reply stated that the matter is between respondent no.1 and the society. Hence, respondent no.3 is not desirous to defend the same.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short as DISTRICT Forum ) vide order dated 27.8.2009, allowed the complaint and held ; After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that it is not disputed that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- as FDR with the opposite party no.1 as per Ex.P2. It is also not disputed that complainant requested the opposite parties to encash the above said FDR but till date the said FDR has not been encashed by the opposite parties. It proves deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount of FDR. In these circumstances, we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite parties no.1 & 2 (jointly and severally) liable to pay the matured amount of FDR vide A/c no.3801 dated 18.5.2004 along with interest as per terms and conditions of the said FDR and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards litigations expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from passing of this order.

Thereafter, on 10.3.2010 respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 25 and 27 of the Act, before the District Forum.

ON 4.8.2011, petitioner appeared in the execution proceedings and filed an application for recall and for setting aside order dated 27.8.2009, passed by the District Forum. District Forum dismissed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order, vide order dated 7.9.2011. Aggrieved by order dated 7.9.2011, petitioner filed an appeal. State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal observing as under ; Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the District Forum, Rohtak whereby for non-compliance of the Award dated 27.8.2009, appellant/judgment debtor has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- failing which further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Despite the sentence order passed by the District Forum, appellant Suresh Bhatia has not appeared before this Commission. Therefore, this appeal can be dismissed on this score alone. Hence, it is dismissed accordingly.

EX-facie, present revision petition is not maintainable under the law at all. Petitioner has filed present revision petition under two different provisions of the Act, (i) firstly ; u/s 21 (b) of the Act and, (ii) secondly ; u/s 27A of the Act.

IMPUGNED order was passed by the State Commission in the execution proceedings. For challenging the order passed in the execution proceeding, only appeal will lie, as is manifestly clear from the provisions of section 27A of the Act, which reads as under ; 27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27 --- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from -- (a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission ; (b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission ; and (c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court. (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District forum or a Sate Commission or the National Commission. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission. Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.

Since, appeal lies against the impugned order, present revision petition filed u/s 27A of the Act is not maintainable, at all.

Even on merits, the petitioner has no case. As per record, petitioner got himself ex-parte deliberately before the District Forum. Admittedly, order dated 27.8.2009 passed by the District Forum allowing the complaint of respondent no.1, was not challenged before the appellate forum. Under these circumstances, above order of District Forum has become final. Moreover, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the District Forum, since till date petitioner has not complied with this order. It is apparent from the conduct of the petitioner, that he has no intention to comply with the order of the District Forum and has been dragging respondent no.1/complainant, from one fora to the other fora just by filing meritless and bogus petitions on one ground or the other. Petitioner by these efforts, to a large extent, has succeeded in frustrating the execution of the award, passed by the District Forum. Petitioner is making all efforts to deprive the complainant the fruits of the decree.

IN Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed ; Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different foras. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands.

NOW question arises for consideration is as to what should be the quantum of costs which should be imposed upon the petitioner for dragging the complainant upto this fora when petitioner had no case at all. It is not that every order passed by the judicial foras is to be challenged by the litigants even if the same are based on sound reasonings. Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011 has observed ; 45. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. 46. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits. 47. If an ex-parte injunction order is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court. 48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have heardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts. 49. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoers. 50. Learned Amicus articulated common man s general impression about litigation in following words : Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.

In our opinion, present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and same is totally, frivolous and bogus one. The same is required to be dismissed with punitive costs. Accordingly, we dismiss the present petition with punitive costs of Rs.25,000/-.

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fifty thousand only) by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within eight weeks from today.

IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid costs within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. Pending application also stands disposed of.

List for compliance on 27.7.2012.