Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1241/2014 on 24 April, 2014
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1 4.4.2014
.
p.b.
C.R.R. No.1241 of 2014 Mr. Deepak Kr. Sengupta, Mr. U. C. Jha, Mr. M. Sharma, Ms. A. Shaw.
....For the petitioner.
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Avinaba Patra.
....For the O.P. No.1.
The CRR No.1241 of 2014 is taken up for analogous hearing with CRR No.1242 of 2014 to CRR No.1246 of 2014 for convenience of discussion.
The affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is kept with the record.
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learned counsel appears on behalf of the opposite party, purchaser of power tiller.
None appears on behalf of the opposite party, manufacturer of power tiller, even after receiving the notice.
The petitioner has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20th March, 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in F.A. No.323 of 2014 arising out of order dated 28th February, 2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in Case No.EA/27 of 2009, by which the State Commission refused to grant the privilege, of suspension of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the District Consumer Forum and also refused to grant bail to the petitioner. 2 It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party Kartick Chandra Biswas, Nemai Chandra Debnath, Hiralal Mazumder, Nanibala Mazumder, Swapan Bhattacharya and Lakshman Mondal purchased power tiller from the petitioner who happens to be the dealer of the said power tiller. The power tillers were found to be defective and, as such, the above opposite parties approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to ventilate their grievances against the petitioner. Ultimately on 25th November, 2008, the District Consumer Forum directed the petitioner and the opposite party manufacturer of the said power tiller to replace the power tiller of each of the above opposite parties by a new one or to make payment of valuation of the power tiller with interest. The said order of the District Consumer Forum reached its finality as the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred the appeal before the State Commission, West Bengal.
The petitioner or the manufacturer opposite party did not replace the power tiller of the said opposite parties. Nor did they make payment of valuation of the amount which is roughly calculated along with interest at Rs.28,78,812/- as on 28th February, 2014. Ultimately, the District Consumer Forum had to start proceeding against the petitioner under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for imposition of penalty for violation of its order. It also appears from record that on 28th February, 2014, the District Consumer Forum held the petitioner guilty and imposed sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to make payment a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more. The effort on the part of the petitioner to 3 obtain suspension of sentence from the District Consumer Forum was unsuccessful. Even the State Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, refused to suspend the sentence of the petitioner and to grant him bail by order dated 20th March, 2014.
With the above factual matrix, Mr. Deepak Sengupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Consumer Forum did not follow the procedure of law for imposition of sentence on the petitioner and the petitioner is illegally detained in custody and, as such, this Court must invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for granting bail to the petitioner on suspension of sentence. The admitted position is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against imposition of sentence by the District Consumer Forum is pending for hearing before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learned counsel for the opposite party purchaser of the power tiller submits that the date of hearing of the said appeal was fixed on 28th April, 2014 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.
Having heard the learned counsels representing the respective parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the opposite party purchasers of the power tiller proceeded against the petitioner either for replacement of the power tiller or for realization of the valuation of the power tiller, but the petitioner remained silent without making any effort for replacement of the power tiller or for making payment of the valuation of the 4 power tiller as directed by the District Consumer Forum. In this connection, I would like to point out that the opposite party purchasers of the power tiller has the right to proceed only against the petitioner without proceeding against the opposite party manufacturer for the purpose of realization of the valuation of the power tiller, because the petitioner and the opposite party manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for replacement of the power tiller or for making payment of the valuation of the power tiller as per order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
This court need not consider at this stage whether there was procedural irregularities in imposition of sentence on the petitioner by the District Consumer Forum, because those issues will be taken into consideration by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, at the time of deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of imposition of sentence of the District Consumer Forum.
Since the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the District Consumer Forum is imprisonment for three years and since the petitioner has preferred appeal against the order of imposition of sentence before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed by the District Consumer Forum may be suspended on some conditions during the pendency of the appeal. On my query, Mr. Uday Chandra Jha, junior of Mr. Deepak Sengupta, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit Rs.8 lakh before the District Consumer Forum as condition precedent for suspension of sentence. 5
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learned counsel representing the opposite party purchasers of the power tiller submits that if the petitioner deposits any amount of money before the District Consumer Forum, the said amount of money should be construed as deposit in compliance with the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and the opposite party purchasers of the power tiller may be allowed to withdraw the said amount of money in partial compliance with the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think that after passing of order with regard to the suspension of sentence and grant of bail of the petitioner, there is no need of keeping these criminal revisions alive. In view of my above findings, the petitioner is granted privilege of suspension of sentence imposed by the District Consumer Forum, Krishnanagar, in Case No.EA 18 of 2009, EA 19 of 2009, EA 20 of 2014, EA 21 of 2014, EA 24 of 2009 and EA 27 of 2009 during the period of pendency of the appeals being FA 323 of 2014 pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, on condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs.8 lakh with the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnanagar, by Monday i.e. 28th April, 2014, in default of deposit of the said amount by the date fixed this order stands cancelled.
The petitioner is, thus, released on bail of Rs.20,000/- on furnishing personal bond of the said amount and also on furnishing bond of equal amount by one local surety to the satisfaction of the President of District Consumer Forum, Krishnanager.
6
The president of the District Consumer Forum, Krishnanagar, is at liberty to distribute the amount of Rs.8 lakh in favour of the opposite party purchasers of power tiller in proportion to their share as orderd by the District Consumer Forum.
The criminal revision being CRR No.1241 of 2014, CRR No.1242 of 2014 to CRR No.1246 of 2014 are, thus, disposed of.
The President, District Consumer Forum, Krishnanagar, is at liberty to decide how to deal with the power tiller in the possession of the opposite party purchaser before disbursement of the amount of money in favour of the opposite party purchaser of the power tiller.
Let a copy of the order be sent down to the District Consumer Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for favour of information and necessary action.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(R. K. Bag, J.)