State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nalina Finance Corporation Rep By Its ... vs Janardhana Shettigar . on 18 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1176/2023 ( Date of Filing : 12 Jun 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/05/2023 in Case No. Execution Application No. EA/39/2021 of District Dakshina Kannada) 1. NALINA FINANCE CORPORATION REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DINESH SHETTY SURIBAILU, BEERUKODI, BOLANTHUR POST & VILLAGE BANTWALA TQ D.K DAKSHIN KANNAD KARNATAKA 2. THARANATH SURIBAILU, BEERUKODI, BOLANTHUR POST & VILLAGE BANTWALA DAKSHIN KANNAD KARNATAKA 3. NALINA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O.BABU SHETTIGAR APPELLANT NO 1 TO 3. ARE R/AT SURIBAILU,BEERUKODI.,BOLANTHUR POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL TQ.,D.K.574 222. DAKSHIN KANNAD KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JANARDHANA SHETTIGAR . AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,S/O.KANTHANNA SHETTIGAR.,R/AT.KAMAJI HOUSE, MANABETTU VILLAGE, KINNIGOLI, MANGALORE.,DAKSHIN KANNAD,KARNATAKA-574 150. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 18 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1176/2023
1.
Nalina Finance Corporation (Regd), Represented by the Managing Partner,
Sri Dinesh Shetty @ Shettigar,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Babu Shettigar,
......Appellant/s
2.
Sri Tharanath,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Babu Shettigar,
3.
Smt. Nalini,
Aged about 65 years,
W/o Babu Shettigar,
Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are
R/at Suribailu, Beerukodi, Bolanthur Post & Village,
Bantwala Tq, DK-574 222.
(By Sri Keerthan Kumar)
V/s
Sri Janardhana Shettigar,
Aged about 64 years,
S/o Kanthanna Shettigar,
R/at Kamaji House,
Manabettu Village,
Kinnigoli, Mangalore,
D.K. 574 150.
.....Respondent/s
ORDER ON ADMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellants/JDRs have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.15.05.2023 passed in EA.No.39/2021 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore which convicted them for an imprisonment of two years and also fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The appellants further submit that the DHR/respondent had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not paying the matured amount after maturity. The District Commission after trial, allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs.80,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from the respective date of maturity. Due to non-compliance of the said order, the respondent had filed an Execution Application No.39/2021 for non-compliance. After issuance of the summons by the District Commission, the appellants could not appear and pay the award amount since there was a declaration of lockdown throughout the Country for COVID-19 pandemic and the appellants business was collapsed and there were not able to pay the award amount and the same was submitted before the District Commission, but, the District Commission without considered the submission has convicted the appellants to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and also imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-. Incase of default to pay the fine amount, the appellants are further directed undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.
3. The appellants are ready to comply the Order passed by the District Commission, but, due to COVID-19 and loss of business during lockdown, they were not able to pay the amount. The appellants are ready and willing to comply the Order passed by the District Commission, but, the time was not granted, hence, prayed to set aside the conviction Order passed by the District Commission and permit them to pay the award amount in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Heard advocate for appellants on admission.
5. We noticed that the complaint filed by the complainants are allowed on 07.09.2018 passed in CC.Nos. 128 to 134 and 228 to 233/2017 and directed the appellants to pay the matured amount to the complainants in their respective complaints. In CC.No.228/2017 the District Commission directed the appellants to pay Rs.80,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 02.09.2011, till payment within 30 days from the date of the Order. The appellants after service of free copy of the Order had not complied as per the direction. The complainant in CC.No.228/2017 had filed Execution Application No.39/2021 for non-compliance of the Order passed by the District Commission. The District Commission after admitting the Execution Application has issued show cause notice wherein the appellants have appeared through their new counsel and filed an application u/s 436 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, accordingly, the District Commission released the appellants on bail and granted time to comply the Order. So far the appellants have not complied the Order passed in CC.No.228/2017. Noticing the same, the District Commission convicted the appellants u/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentence was passed to undergo imprisonment for two years and also imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-. Against which, the appellants preferred this appeal and prayed to set free the appellants by setting aside the Order passed by the District Commission.
6. The appellants admits that they have not complied the Order passed by the District Commission within the stipulated time provided. Further at the time of pendency of the Execution Application, the appellants have also not made any attempts to pay the award amount. Having no option, the District Commission sentenced them for imprisonment for a period of two years as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law. The complainant constrained to file this appeal u/s 71 for recovery of his own money. The appellants have not shown any valid reasons for non-compliance of the Order before the District Commission. Mere saying business was under loss due to COVID-19 is not a sufficient cause for exemption for paying the award amount. Even we noticed that the appellants have not made any attempts to pay atleast 50% of the award amount before this Commission at the time of preferring an appeal. Mere prayer for setting aside the Order of conviction without any valid reasons is not acceptable. The appellants are supposed to comply the Order within the stipulated time of 30 days, if not complied, they have to undergo imprisonment and also to pay penalty. The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER