BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. HARJINDER SINGH CHHAGGAR
LAWS(NCD)-2020-1-114
NCDRC
Decided on January 07,2020

Bajwa Developers Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
HARJINDER SINGH CHHAGGAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prem Narain, Presiding Member - (1.) This appeal execution has been filed by the appellants Bajwa Developers Ltd. & anr. against the orders dated 14.06.2018 & 28.05.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') in EA No.117 of 2017 in CC No.138 of 2015.
(2.) The complaint case was decided by the State Commission vide order dated 16.09.2016 and all the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant. The execution was filed by the complainant for implementation of the State Commission's order and the State Commission finally passed the order dated 28.05.2018 whereby the appellant No.2 herein has been sentenced with two years imprisonment along with Rs.10,000/- as fine. The appellant No.2 moved an application before the State Commission for suspension of the sentence, however the State commission dismissed this application vide its order dated 14.06.2018.The present appeal execution has been filed against order dated 28.05.2018 and order dated 14.06.2018 under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The matter was listed for final hearing on 19.09.2019. The following order was passed on that day. "None is present on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 is present, who states that the appellant has made payment to respondent no.1 as per the order of the State Commission and is nothing remains in the present appeal. The matter is reserved for orders."
(3.) The following prayer has been made in the appeal execution:- "In view of the above facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to stay the operation, effect and implementation of the orders dated 11.04.2018 and 28.05.2018 during the pendency of the appellants' proceedings already instituted, namely FA/920/2018 and AE 79/2018 and in the unlikeliest event of this Hon'ble Commission not finding favour with the aforesaid proceedings, put the appellants in the same position in which they would have been if the primary faulty order i.e. order dated 11.04.2018 itself had not been passed by the led. State Commission.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.