AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
As these revision petitions are filed against similar orders passed by the State Commission in First Appeals filed by the Opposite parties against the orders passed by the District Forum in the original complaint cases filed by the petitioners, they are being considered together. The RP no. 2258 of 2019 shall be taken as the lead case for consideration.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22 nd August 2019 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission) in FA no. 1078 of 2018. This first appeal was filed before the State Commission by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum in the original complaint case. The order of the District Forum passed in the complaint filed by the petitioner herein before the District Forum had become final as the same was not challenged in appeal. The complainant then moved before the District Forum for execution of the order passed in complaint case. The State Commission has now admitted the appeal filed by the opposite party against the order passed by the District Forum in the original complaint case and has stayed the orders of warrant issued by the District Forum in the execution case. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the execution proceedings and the proceedings in the main complaint case are two different proceedings and the order passed in one proceeding by the District Forum cannot be stayed by the State Commission in other proceedings. It has been prayed that the impugned order of the State Commission be stayed and the matter be heard after issuing notice to other parties.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is seen that the impugned order has been passed in FA no.1078 of 2018 which has been stated to be an appeal filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum passed in the original complaint case filed by the petitioner. Once the State Commission has already admitted the appeal against the order passed in the original complaint case, there is no justification for continuing with the execution proceedings before the District Forum. The State Commission should have stayed the main order passed by the District Forum in the complaint case, however, they have stayed the proceedings in the execution case and have also stayed the warrant issued against the OPs. In fact, both these orders would have the same effect. Clearly, the execution proceedings cannot proceed when an appeal is pending before the State Commission and stay has been granted, therefore, there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission and consequently, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Another ground of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal is admitted by the State Commission and for deciding the appeal it will take very long time for disposing the appeal. The complainant has already suffered a lot as the money was deposited in the year 2012 and the order was passed for refund, however, the refund of the amount has not yet been received by the complainant and he is continuously suffering the financial loss. In this context, the State Commission is requested to finalise this appeal within a period of three months so that the grievances of the complainant are taken care of.
Based on the above discussion, all the revision petitions being RP nos. 2257 to 2276 of 2019 are dismissed. Parties to appear before the State Commission on the date already fixed.