Sarwan Kumar vs Praveen Sehajpal

THESE petitions have been filed by petitioners challenging order dated 24.1.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short State Commission)

BRIEF facts are that petitioner Sarwan Kumar and others deposited certain amounts with M/s Sehajpal Finance and Investment Ltd, District Nawanshahr. (O.Ps in District Forum) O.Ps closed the finance company and did not refund the amount to Sh. Sarwan Kumar and others. Complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were filed by petitioners against the O.Ps which were allowed by the District Forum. O. Ps did not comply with the order and did not pay the amounts. Accordingly, petitioners filed execution application in which Parveen Sehajpal/respondent filed certain objections against attachment and sale of the house, which were dismissed by the District Forum. Appeal filed by respondent was partly allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 21.8.2008. State Commission directed that instead of selling the entire house, only half share in the house is liable to be attached and be sold in execution of the decree against the OPs. Petitioners, thereafter filed two miscellaneous applications alleging that when warrant of attachment and sale was issued by the District Forum, Nawanshar, the Collector returned the same with the direction that portion of the house which is to be sold by public auction, should be specified.

Petitioners in these applications therefore, prayed for specific directions by the State Commission.

STATE Commission, vide impugned order dismissed the above applications. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, petitioners have filed the present revision.

IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since petitioners (who are decree holders) have been suffering immensely for none of their fault, appropriate directions be issued, so that petitioners can get the decrees executed in their favour at the earliest. State Commission in its impugned order observed; 5. The order dated 21.8.2008 passed by this Commission is very much clear that it is only the share in the house which is to be sold and therefore, the question of specifying any particular portion of the house to be sold does not arise. The house has not been partitioned so far between the OP and other co-sharers. The law does not prohibit the sale of a share in the house. The orders passed by this Commission cannot be said to be vague. However, these orders are to be complied with by learned District Forum, Nawanshahr and if there is any problem in the execution of the orders, it is the District Forum, Nawanshahr, which is to take further action in the matter. In case the collector is not complying with the orders of the learned District Forum, which issued the warrant of attachment and sale, the action against the collector or the application by the complainant in that respect would lie either before the District Forum Nawanshahr or before the Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. This Commission, therefore does not have any further directions to give or clarification to make because after the decision dated 21.8.2008, it has become functus officio in the matter. 6. Both the applications are, therefore, dismissed leaving the complainant at liberty to take further appropriate action as they deem fit.

There is no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order. If the Collector is not executing the order, then appropriate remedy available with the petitioners is to approach the District Forum.

UNDER these circumstances, the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

ACCORDINGLY, present revision petitions are not maintainable and same are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.