ARVIND AGGARWAL Vs. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dtd. 6/10/2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 namely the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') whereby it dismissed the miscellaneous application moved by the petitioner for deleting his name from the array of judgment debtors.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was filed against M/s Raheja Developers Limited, before the Commission seeking refund of the amount along with the guaranteed premium, interest, compensation etc. as the company had delayed in providing services. Several other allegations were levelled apart from the above in the complaint and after having considered the said complaint, an order was passed on 21/2/2022 (Annexure P-3) by the Commission, whereby it directed as follows:-

(3.) The order was required to be complied with within a period of 30 days however the same was not done and therefore an execution application was preferred before the Commission under Sec. 72 of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order 21 CPC and the petitioner was shown as judgment debtor/respondent No.6 in the capacity of one of the additional Directors/Directors. The petitioner upon service having been effected on him moved an application for deleting his name from the array of judgment debtor. It was stated by him that he has joined as Assistant Vice President on 20/1/2021. He was offered directorship as a temporary arrangement and he worked as a director for less than two months i.e from 28/6/2021 to 25/8/2021. He resigned from the Company on 25/8/2021 and prayed that his name should be deleted. Similar application was moved in the other complaint case also. Both the applications were heard by the Commission and after considering the submissions, the applications were rejected holding them to be not maintainable.