State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naveen Kumar Wadhwa vs Anil Kumar Ajmani on 14 November, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 14.11.2007 Revision Petition No. RP-07/22 (Arising out of Order dated 12-09-2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum -III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Case No.M/6664/04/434/02) Mr. Naveen Kumar Wadhwa Appellant R/o 21/11, 2nd Floor, Through West Patel Nagar, Mr. Yog Verdhan &, New Delhi-110008. Mr. S.M. Wadhwa, Advocates Versus 1. Mr. Anil Kumar Ajmani Respondents R/o 2/67, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015. 2. Ms. Kamaljeet Kaur R/o 58-A, AB-Block, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015. 3. Mr. Amrik Singh R/o 58-A, AS-Block, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 12.09.07, the application of the appellant under Section 340 Cr.PC for initiating the proceedings against the respondent for having relied upon false, fabricated and forged documents before the District Forum in the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act was rejected. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Admittedly, the order passed by the District Forum under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act while allowing the complaint of the respondent has attained finality in asmuch as the same has neither been set aside by the State Commission nor by the National Commission.
3. Earlier to this the appellant had filed a petition before this Commission against the proceedings initiated against him by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Vide impugned order dated 01.09.06 in Appeal No. 809/06 filed by the appellant we had upheld the main order of the District Forum but showed indulgence by cancelling the non-bailable warrants issued against him.
4. Again appellant moved an application against the order dated 03.01.2007 passed by the District Forum issuing warrants under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act which was decided by order dated 07.03.2007 directing the District Forum to first exhaust the provision of Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act before resorting to the penal proceedings under Section 27. Instead, the appellant filed the instant application under Section 340 CR.PC which has been rejected by the District Forum by way of detailed and reasoned order. Since the main order has already attained finality, the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.PC alleging that the District Forum had relied upon false, fabricated and forged documents while deciding the complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act was not at all maintainable. If such an application is allowed, the order passed by the Appellate Commission, the National Commission would be rendered nullity and the District Forum would be relegated to decide the complaint afresh which is not permissible under the law.
5. Another grievance of the appellant is that a verbal show cause notice given by the District Forum that he has not complied with the order has not been discussed and dealt with. Such a show cause notice, if any, though there is no provision to give verbal show cause notice is rendered redundant after rejection of the application under Section 340 Cr.PC moved by the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant is labouring under misconception that the proceedings under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be initiated along with penal proceedings under Section 27 of CPA. Proceedings under Section 25 are recovery proceedings whereas the proceedings under Section 27 are penal provisions which are on the parameter of Contempt of Court Act. Under Section 27 of the CPA, the District Forum has no power to pass an order for recovery of the amount whereas Section 25 empowers the District Forum to initiate recovery proceedings by way of issuing recovery certificate. Section 27 prescribes only sentence of imprisonment of a term for which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 2,000/- but which may extend to Rs. 10,000/-, or with both for disobedience of the order passed by the District Forum or for failure or omission to comply with the order of the District Forum and nothing beyond that.
7. Proceedings under Section 27 of the Act are independent of the proceeding u/s 25.
While Section 25 prescribes for the procedure for recovery of the amount payable by a person against whom the order has been made whereas Section 27 prescribes penalty for the person who has failed or omitted to comply with any order passed by the District Forum and that this penalty is a one-time penalty in the form of sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. So far as recovery of the awarded amount is concerned, the same can be recovered through proceedings under Section 25 of the Act only.
8. In the result, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
9. However, the cost for rejecting the three applications is hereby waived as the reason for imposing cost was unjustified. A person cannot be burdened with the cost merely because he moves one application after another. The cost imposed for rejection of the application and not for moving the application.
10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
11. Copy be sent to Presidents of all the District Forums.
12. Announced on 14th day of November, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc