Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs The Registrar, State Consumer Disputes ... on 9 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(5)CTC248, AIR 2007 (NOC) 2629 (MAD.)
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
ORDER P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Kala Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17182 of 2000 and Mr. M. Ilango, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 8193 and 8194 of 2001, Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A.D. Jagadish Chandra, learned Counsel for the third respondent in all the writ petitions.
2. The present writ petitions are filed under the following circumstances:
In Consumer Original Petition No. 78 of 1996 filed by the third respondent, a direction was issued for payment of certain amount by the opposite parties in the said consumer dispute, who are the present petitioners. Out of the total amount payable, the Transport Corporation deposited a cheque for Rs. 1,169/- before the second respondent. But the balance amount has not been deposited. A proceeding was initiated for taking action as the order of the original District Forum had not been complied with. The District Forum found that the order had not been complied with and directed that the person shall be imprisoned for a period of three months. Against such order, the petitioner in W.P. No. 17182 of 2000 filed appeal. However, on the date, when the counsel for the appellant had remained unavoidably absent, the appeal was taken up and the Appellate Forum found that the order passed by the District Forum was justified and the Appellate Forum also noted that the counsel for the appellant was absent and accordingly, the order of the District Forum was confirmed. Against such order, these three writ petitions have been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that when the matter was listed for hearing, the counsel for the appellant had remained unavoidably absent and therefore, the Appellate Forum should not have confirmed the matter on merits and should have either dismissed the appeal for default or should have adjourned the matter. It is further submitted that application was filed for restoration of the appeal but the Appellate Authority has stated that such application for restoration is not maintainable as the appellate authority has disposed of the matter on merits.
4. In such a background, in normal course, the matter would have been remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits. However, keeping in view the nature of dispute, I feel interest of justice would be met by disposing the matter finally here, instead of remitting the matter for fresh disposal before the appellate authority as such exercise is likely to cause prejudice not only to the petitioners but also to the respondents.
5. It is apparent from the materials on record that the Transport Corporation was under the impression that there was joint and several liability and therefore, the Transport Corporation had deposited the cheque representing 1/3rd liability. Even though technically such impression of the Transport Corporation cannot be correct, one cannot question the bona fides of the Corporation. Be that as it may. Admittedly, the entire order had not been complied with, since the entire amount, as directed, had not been deposited which had to be paid to the concerned complainant. Thus, admittedly, there was failure or omission to comply with the order passed by the District Forum. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the District Forum was incorrect in holding that the order had not been complied with. However, while imposing penalty, the District Forum had the discretion. Instead of passing an order of imprisonment, the District Forum could have directed for payment of fine since this was a single transgression.
6. Keeping in view the above aspects, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to impose a fine of Rs. 2,000/- which is the minimum fine contemplated.
7. In the facts and circumstances, I direct that the said fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- shall be deposited by the Transport Corporation before the District Forum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the consumer had to face a prolonged litigation for no fault of his, out of such amount of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 1,500/- shall be paid to the consumer as compensation. This amount shall be paid to him by the District Forum. It is also made clear that the earlier amount, which has been deposited should also be disbursed to him if not already disbursed. In view of this order, the non-bailable warrants issued by the District Forum are quashed. However, if the amount is not deposited, as directed above, it would be open to the District Forum to take necessary action in accordance with law.