STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Execution Application No. : 21 of 2013 Date of Institution : 11.06.2013 Date of Decision : 19/08/2013 1. Mrs.Suman aged about 30 years w/o Desraj, resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 2. Desraj aged about 35 years s/o Pitamber, resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 3. Vikas aged about 10 years s/o Desraj, through his father and natural guardian Desraj, resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 4. Jyoti aged about 8 years s/o Desraj, through her father and natural guardian Desraj, resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 5. Vikas aged about 5 years s/o Desraj, through his father and natural guardian Desraj, resident of # 176, Block J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. ……Applicants/Decree Holders/ Complainants V e r s u s Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, through its Director-Principal/Medical Superintendent. .... Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party No.1 Execution Application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the applicants/Decree Holders/Complainants. Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), has been filed by the Decree Holders/complainants, on the averments, that they (complainants), filed Consumer Complaint bearing No.06 of 2011, in this Commission, which was decided, in their favour, vide order dated 01.03.2012. It was stated that the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties (1 to 4), were directed, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs, as compensation, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order dated 01.03.2012, alongwith litigation costs, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. It was further stated that the Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh/Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, after payment of a sum of Rs.1 lac towards compensation, and Rs.12,500/-, towards cost of litigation, took up the stand, that it was liable to pay only one fourth of the amount awarded, as it was only one of the four parties, in the Consumer Complaint, aforesaid. It was further stated that the stand taken up, by Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, is not, in accordance with the provisions of law. It was further stated that since the order dated 01.03.2012, passed by this Commission, in Consumer Complaint, bearing no. 06 of 2011, directing the Opposite Parties, including Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, jointly and severally, to pay the amount awarded, therefore, it (Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1), was alone liable to pay the entire amount aforesaid. It was further stated that even the guilty Doctors and Technician were in the employment of Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, at the relevant time, but now their addresses were not available, with the Decree Holders/ complainants, and, therefore, it would be very difficult to recover the amount, from the said Doctors and Technician. It was further stated that more than one year had lapsed, from the date of passing the order dated 01.03.2012, but Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, had failed to comply with the same. It was further stated that Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, has not filed any appeal, against the order dated 01.03.2012, passed by this Commission, and, therefore, the said order against it, had already become final. It was further stated that, thus, Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3 lacs, alongwith penal interest @12% P.A., w.e.f 21.01.2011 and Rs.37,500/-, towards litigation costs. Accordingly, the prayer was made that Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, be punished, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. 2. Notice of this application, was given to Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, which filed reply, by way of affidavit of Dr.Rajiv Vadehra, Medical Superintendent-cum-Joint Principal Medical Officer-cum-Director Health and Family Welfare, Chandigarh Administration. It was stated that the Decree Holders/Complainants, deliberately concealed the material facts, from this Commission i.e. Dr. Manpreet Kaur, one of the Opposite Parties, in the complaint, had filed an appeal, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, against the order dated 01.03.2012, passed by this Commission, which (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi), vide order dated 06.07.2012, stayed the same (impugned order), qua her. It was further stated that, so far as the other two Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, were concerned, as per the information, they also filed appeals, and got stay order, qua them. It was further stated that Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, had already paid a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation. and Rs.12,500/-, as cost of litigation, as per its liability of one fourth share of the total amount awarded, and, as such, it complied with the order dated 01.03.2012. It was further stated that out of the other three Opposite Parties in the complaint, who were in the employment of the Hospital, at the relevant time, two were employed on temporary/contractual/tenure service and one on deputation from Punjab, who had since been repatriated. It was further stated that since Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1 had already complied with its part of the order, the remaining amount could be recovered from it. 3. We have heard the Counsel for the Decree Holders/complainants, Govt. Pleader for Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, and, have gone through record of the case, carefully. 4. Consumer Complaint No. 06 of 2011, on 21.01.2011, was filed, against the following Opposite Parties:- 1. Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through its Director Principal, . 2. Mrs.Kirti Sood, Lab Technician, Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through the Medical Superintendent, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 3. Dr.Navdeep Intern, Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through the Medical Superintendent, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 4. Dr.Manpreet, House Surgeon, Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through the Medical Superintendent, GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh. 5. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Medical Superintendent 5. The name of Opposite Party No.5, was deleted vide order dated 25.01.2011. Ultimately, the complaint was accepted, by this Commission, vide order dated 01.03.2012, and the Opposite Parties (1 to 4) were jointly and severally directed as under:- “For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants. The Opposite parties shall also pay to the complainants Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to bear all the expenses, which may be incurred on the future treatment of complainant No.1, in any government hospital/health centre/dispensary etc. This order be complied with, by the Opposite Parties within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.4 lacs alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a., to the complainants, from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 21.01.2011, till its realization, besides costs of litigation”. 6. From the afore-extracted operative part of the order dated 01.03.2012, it is evident that Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, were jointly and severally held liable to pay an amount of Rs.4 lacs, as compensation and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The Opposite Parties were required to jointly and severally comply with the order dated 01.03.2012, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which, they were liable to pay the amount of Rs.4 lacs, alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a., to the complainants, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 21.01.2011, till realization, besides payment of costs of litigation. As per law, once, the Opposite Parties were held, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount, awarded by this Commission, vide order dated 01.03.2012, the Decree Holders/Complainants, could recover the amount, so payable, from one Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, or from all the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties. If the Decree Holders/complainants wanted to recover the amount, so awarded, vide order dated 01.03.2012, from one Opposite Party i.e. Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, then the latter had the remedy to recover the amount, from other Opposite Parties subject, however, to the final decision of appeals already filed by them, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The Judgment Debtors/ Opposite Parties could not bifurcate their liability, of their own. They were required to comply with the order, passed by this Commission. Admittedly, Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, has not filed any appeal, against the order dated 01.03.2012, and has already paid a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.1 lac as compensation and Rs.12,500/- as cost of litigation), as per its own bifurcation of liability. As stated above, it could not do so. Since, neither any appeal has been filed by Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, nor the question of stay of the order impugned, qua it (Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1), by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, could ever rise, in such circumstances, Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, could not deny the payment of the entire amount, awarded by this Commission, vide order dated 01.03.2012 minus (-) the one, already paid by it, by bifurcating its liability, as per its own volition. The Execution Application, thus, is maintainable against Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, for recovery of the entire awarded amount, from it. 7. No doubt, First Appeal No. 175 of 2012, against the order dated 01.03.2012, passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No. 06 of 2011, by this Commission, was filed by Dr. Manpreet Kaur/Opposite Party No.4, in which, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, passed the order dated 06.07.2012, the operative part of which, reads as under:- “Subject to deposit of Rs.1 Lac in this Commission within four weeks, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed qua the appellant. List along with FA 174/2012 in due course” 8. Similarly, First Appeal No. 463 of 2012, against the order dated 01.03.2012, passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No. 06 of 2011, by this Commission, was filed by Dr. Navdeep Kaur/Opposite Party No.3, in which, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, passed the order dated 14.08.2012, the operative part of which, reads as under:- “Subject to deposit of Rs.1 Lac (Rupees One Lac) in this Commission within four weeks, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed qua the appellant” 9. Similarly, First Appeal No. 751 of 2012, against the order dated 01.03.2012, passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No. 06 of 2011, by this Commission, was filed by Mrs. Kirti Sood/Opposite Party No.2, in which, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, passed the order dated 10.04.2013, the operative part of which, reads as under:- “Subject to deposit of Rs.1 lakh within 4 weeks, operation of the impugned order as against appellant shall remain stayed” 10. From the afore-extracted orders, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the appeals, filed by Mrs. Kirti Sood/Opposite Party No.2, Dr. Navdeep Kaur/Opposite Party No.3 and Dr. Manpreet Kaur/Opposite Party No.4, it is evident, that operation of the impugned order was stayed, only qua them, subject to deposit of Rs.1 lac each. It was not that the entire order dated 01.03.2012 was stayed. So far as the order passed against Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, by this Commission, is concerned, as stated above, neither it filed an appeal, against the same (order dated 01.03.2012), nor did the question of grant of any stay, against it, ever arise. Since, neither Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, filed any appeal, nor the question of any stay, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, against it, ever arose, it could not deny its liability to make payment of the remaining amount, to the Decree Holders/complainants, only on the ground, that its liability was limited to the extent of one fourth of the amount awarded, referred to above, and not more than that. As stated above, had the operation of the order, as a whole, qua all the Opposite Parties (1 to 4), been stayed, the matter would have been different. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Govt. Pleader for Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, from the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the appeals, filed by other Opposite Parties, and stay of operation of the impugned order, having been granted only qua them. The submission of the Govt. Pleader for Judgment Debtor No.1/Opposite Party No.1, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the Execution Application is accepted, with no order as to costs, qua the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party No.1. 12. According to the office report a sum of Rs.4,29,916.44 Ps., was due, as on 14.08.2013, against the Judgment Debtor /Opposite Party No.1. The Judgment Debtor /Opposite Party No.1, is directed to make payment of this amount, with interest up-to-date, on or before 27.09.2013, failing which further appropriate orders, under Section 27 of the Act shall be passed. 13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the Decree Holders/complainants, and Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party No.1, free-of-charge. 14. The office is directed to put up the case file on the date fixed i.e. 27.09.2013, for further proceedings. Pronounced. August 19, 2013 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg