National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Justice V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), observed that Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and therefore, the State Commission has no option but to execute the order passed in the Consumer Complaints.
It has been stated that three Consumer Complaints were instituted before the State Commission against five persons including the appellant.
The above-stated Consumer Complaints were allowed by the State Commission against all the OPs including the appellant.
The order passed by the State Commission was not complied, therefore execution proceedings were initiated against the OPs in the Consumer Complaints including the appellant. Non-Bailable Arrest Warrants were issued by the State Commission, but the same was not executed and hence they were again issued and sent to SSP, Mohali.
Decision
Bench stated that in its opinion, the Consumer Complaints were allowed against all the OPs including the appellant, the appropriate remedy for him was to challenge the order passed by the State Commission in the Consumer Complaint.
Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and therefore, the State Commission has no option but to execute the order passed in the Consumer Complaints irrespective of whether the appellant had resigned from the Directorship of the company or not.
Since an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, it was not open to the State Commission nor is it open to this Commission to examine, in execution proceedings, as to whether the appellant had resigned from the Directorship of the company as is claimed by him or not. Similarly, neither the State Commission acting in the execution proceedings nor this Commission, while hearing an appeal arising out of the execution proceedings, can go into this question.
Therefore, in view of the above, no relief to the appellant could be granted.
However, the Commission permitted the appellant to apply to the State Commission to be released on his personal bond if he is unable to arrange a surety. If such a request is made, it will be examined by the State Commission on its own merits. [Hardayal Singh Mann v. Inderjit Singh, Appeal Execution No. 60 of 2020, decided on 29-10-2020]
