Karnataka High Court
M/S Vintage Shelters vs Dr. Indurekha Tripathy on 25 November, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 KARNATAKA 142, 2011 (2) AIR KANT HCR 718, (2011) 4 KANT LJ 133, (2011) 2 KCCR 1573
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HGN'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. I<OMARAsVV_A"Mi§/ A A A 1' CRIMINAL PETITION NO.37?;27mCj:f~"20.1G" BETWEEN: ' M/S VINTAGE SHELTERS #118, 3*" FLOOR PAMADI CHAMBERS D V (3 ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE W 560 004 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY '- V . S/O LATE PAPA REDDY * AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS... Z, ..-,T=ETIjTIVO'NER' (BY SRI: H T,.wA'rARA._TA',V ADV_O__CA.TE',<' I AND: DR.INDDREI<HA TRIPATHY W/O DR SAMBASIVA RAO ' MAJOR * " ', R/AT #2194, 1ST FLOOR, _ I1"*'"'A' MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR 2"DSTAGE " 3ANC5ALO§§E?:«.«-- '.550 010. ..... ...RESPONDENT
» (BV SR1; N§.RRA'}.AGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR * " SSRE;_"-Ma_V'vSHRIDHAR CHAKRAVARTHY, ADVOCATE) T'RIS"AACRIMT'IIA:,T:' PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 432 OF CODE OF 'C._RIM,IN'A§,«PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER VF._'DA'T'ED 26.3.2010, AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER BY QUASHING THE VTROCEEDINGS CR.C.15/2010 {EP NO.6/2010) PENDING ON THE FILE _OF T'HVE"I\J"..ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 'A .__'BA_N'GA:...O_RE';'_.
2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION BEFORE THE COURT THIS DAY, THE COUR? MADE THE FO§.i.OWE§\JG:»~ QRDER This Criminai Petition is fiied under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 26.3.2010 and discharge the petitioner DV 3 proceedings in Cr.C.15/2010 (rep No.6/2010) pendi'nij orgtrfié I fite of the IV Addl. District consumei'r'A"Dis;u_1tes Forum, Bangaiore.
2. I have heard the learned 'counsel "for. th.ef'.pet?»tVi'Vo'ner as well as the learned counse£..V_fortii1e' respoiident.
3. The2:VpriVn_A1;3",:§)',_., as under:
ExecutiiioriO'petit!.on:~j.'A'an'd«eLVr'i"Section 27 of Consumer Protectiori=»'3.ct éection 200 of Code of Criminai rEé'ad:VI'w_ith order 21 Ruie 11 of Code of Civit ProcedVu.reVéI'wa::..v'fiie'd..? The compiainant is a Doctor. The Vcompfainant_>hasIpresented the complaint against the O'"if:aic--cu"sedjjudgment debtor. It is alieged that the amount 7_'"*Oo'rd:.ei*.e'd/aiiivarded by the Consumer Forum is 37,50,000/--, 3 interest awarded on principai sum is ?2,28,575/-, cost awarded is ?2,000/-, the advocate fee awarded is ?13,875/-. In ali, ?9,94,450/- was awarded by the Consumer Forum. This amount was not paid by the accused. Therefore, the compiainantmdecree hoider was constrained to Wi_n-iti'a--tfe.a'.,,, proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer 'éirotectiioind M Act. The accused has preferred this Crimi'r1ai_F'<.etitioAn"nnd'er Section 482 of Code of Criminai Procedureiltozquash.th,e~.5a--i:d«-nVC' proceedings.
4. Learned counsei fovrithe that the Consumer Forum is not ernDQ_Wered"_tof:try.:CVt'i'Ci-eoffence in the absence of7,_notificVat--io--n._»issue_cl-.,_py the Government. In the absence of such iinot'ific'atio..n;"---the Consumer Forum cannot exercise"jurisdiction' Judicial Magistrate First Ciass. Even ts-.e'aVt"'ing_'Vti:e_:i"a.ppViication filed under Order 21 Ruie 11 of Code of Ci»/_iE'-C'.§?'Vroce'd_uV_reAV.:'as complaint for the offence punishabie v".:-Twui':der Section' -27 of the Consumer Protection Act by the "C4o*nsum.er Forum is improper.
ii'//'
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 4(2) of Code of Crimijnal, Procedure and submitted that Consumer compiy with Section 4(2) of Code of Criminal Procecrdrer
6. Learned counsel for the responderit..suAbmi'tted"tti'a__t the validity of Section 27 of Consu.rnerprotection"
been upheid in case of STATE or K_i_€t'F€:!§ii¢\Tf\KA.'\;'~,/:S:,. PAfi2M3rr srnerr & ORS. reported inv1'§.zif'2QC€3)2,j_Ci$j"~5:.fASC) wherein the Hon'b|e Supreme Court has Zhreidas u-ndeer':A."»_ 1 "
"Constrtu_tion'a'i3Evaiidit-§r'"of__ 27, Consumer Protection.,,Ac't._?Skzgpe pjroi/'isi.on"_Q.r" Section 27 prior to and afterA'a'rne,ndme--n,t"'~e_ By _' Consumer Protection (Amendment)Act,"2':DO2,«..as.,contained in Section 23 of Arriendr'ng"*/g'\ct,u, wriich was struck down as unc'onstttutéoana»!,, Court, has been omitted _ Su;b:sectior1r.A.(2) Hintmcuced which provides District A ' :FVo'ru,rri-.,o'r'.State___Comméss§on or Natéonai Commission .E_3S~i'.<;asevtri;--a,y tievrs'haii have power of Judiciai Magistrate oi*..Eirst For triai of offences under Act -- On such conrerment' of powers, District Forum or State rCommiVs's¢ion or Nationai Commission, on whom powers are:-'conferred, shaii be deemed to be Judiciai 'Magistrate of First Ciass of Code -- Amendments 5 effective from 15.3.2003 -- Controversy becomes academic -- Provision not vioiative of Article 21 of Constitution -- Constitution of India, 1950 -- Articie 21
-- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -- Sections 27 (as amended), 23 proviso (as amended by Act 2002)"
7. Consumer Protection Act is a se|f«~contained provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer d_i-sputesg'---a,' . quasi--judicia| machinery is set up. __,Th,ese _-q'ua's.i:?_j:z'd'icia.l bodies will observe the principle of nat::ira5,"'jirstiéce_0and been empowered to give reliefs o0f"a_spec'ific nat*u_re~{.a4n,d,,to award appropriate compensation to___uc~o,nsumers.r--.Penalising for non--compliance of the order, given ti',/piv'vthe.,pquasi-judicial bodies have.,vVa|s__o.A Strict rules of evidence and procedure are This being the position, executioijgbetiption iundervhorder 21 Rule 11 of Code of treated as complaint filed under Section 27 of Co~n:s«-.i'n1e;'.Protection Act by the Consumer Forum, has t,tie.,iiJrisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First _It i.s'V-the contention of the learned counsel for the res.p'unVdenrt that on the date of presentation of execution 6 petition itseif, provisions of Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure and contravention of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act were mentioned in the complaint.
8. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act readsjas undeh "Penalties -- (1) Where a trader or a person against whom a compiaiht is ..irna»de '' compiainant fails or omits to compiir with,any"'o.rd.er'- P made by the District Forum, the State, 'C--ommis:s.E_o.n " C' or the National Commission,Vas,:"'th_e case niay such trader or person or CO'i'T'P%lV'{L)§iE:3"|i'.--a_'i'3'i: sha.ii:'bev} punished with imprisorirnent for atte.r_m.""w,hich shaiif not be iess than one mondthbutvextend to threewyearéi, or::fw'ith"'fi.n'e whi'ch"'s'vhaii not be less than two tnctisarid-s,A'ru,pee,s"but which may extend to ten thousand, rupees:,,'crdwi_th' both;
V (2)4;Noi;withstan.d_in§: anything contained in the Code ,oi',Crin3i'inai'-.gArOCed'ur'é,'ii9?3 (2 of 1974), the District ' ,F'or.urri»__orState Commission or the National the case may be, shall have the oo.wer_of affludiciai Magistrate of the first class for the t..riai«; of offences under this Act, and on such V :<con_ferhient of powers, the District Forum or the Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so 57 '§'_,/'/ 7 conferred, shaii be deemed to be a Judiciai Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Aii offences under this Act may be tried summariiy by the Sistrict Forum or the State Commission or the Nationai Commission, as the case may be.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent the unreported ruiihg in case of V. STATE oe TAMILNADU in wR1T"P.§'crzT1oie' ,9io.34i21"?/'2voo7, wherein at paragraphs 28 tQ.33 thAe----hiyig-h"Court' o'fi3_ud,i.cature at Madras has observed as u}idfle~i<:1"
;_*'28. "i'.»;5u.t _&vinA3i,Vtrae:v"case_ onwhand, the District Consu Eorumwi :t"r:.e:'S--.ta"te Consumer Commission have aireadi/WV V"be.en = ,:constituted by necessary Noti_fi'c«atAions4"issued' the State Government under and'H(b--)--------of the consumer Protection Act, » Consumer Forums have been duiy .es.t_abA%ish:'ed:' State Government by necessary i"~i.:qti'Vficat_io'risi.:_ *::After such estabiishment, the powers of V a Jéudziciiaai Magistrate have been conferred upon them ..bv_i:he"~statute itseif under Section 27(2) of the Act. "fheériefore, the question of the State Government "issuing a second Notification either under Section ,§/ 8 11(1) or under Section 16(1) or under Section 32(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise. To hold that a notification by the State Government under Section 11(1) or 16(1) or 32(1) of the Code is necessary, to enable the Forums to exercise Magisterial powers, would tantamount to they». imposition of an artificial restriction that a Consum.er<'»,':'x_"».. Forum has to be constituted by 2 notifications,.--,,"one._T'"R"
under section 9 of the Consumer Protection_*Acti~..and"'*i.. another under section 32 of the of Procedure. This could never have ble.en:'--th'e intention _ "
of the legislature, when Amendment Act 26?, was passed, conferring magisterial'powers~.up'or'{ the Consumer Forums.
29. More over, Section -127(2)' of _..the.AA.fCo'nsumer Protection Act,_o'pens ii/AV"i't'l'V'i,=v:'noi1f:§3--EZiSt&)sn!j€VV'V clause".
The section. co'nfersV:'powelr"-o_f a Judicial Magistrate of First Class Consumer Forums, "notwithstanding anyt=hi'rig._'..'icontained in the Code of Cri,riji'n'ali.,Procedure, 1973". Therefore, there is no it ne'e-d:'fo'r».thie, Consumer Forums to look forward to a ' ,i3iotifica.tiVon:'from_ the State Government for exercising .t_hose "pow.e_rs,',;"when the statute has clothed these Fo~rums.withj'..--such powers by operation of law. .30. T"ne' purport of Section 27(2) of the Consumer 5?rot'ection Act, is to create a legal fiction. This is aijnade clear by the use of the expression "shall be 9 deemed to be a judicial Magistrate of First Class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure". No Court of a Judicial Magistrate is sought to be established afresh, by section 27(2). As seen from the earlier discussion, a notification under Section 11(1) of the Code may be necessary for establishing a new'... in Court of Judicial Magistrate in an area other than,a_,'_» metropolitan area. But such a notification necessary when an Act of PariiamentMconfets.po'wers, upon an existing Forum, by a deeming prowsvion. v
31. The above legal pos,itio,n cou.l_d'"' be understood, if we look at sim'ilar*-provisions'=.u,hde'rj other enactments such, as The....F:a'mily_, Coulrts-..Act_,x§ 1984. Section 7(2) of Vthlefsaitfi Ag:t,'confer's.,upon the Family courts constituted under the Act.,,ti.é,:'poy:rers of a Magistrate under chapterlIx.'ef_thevr».codle ««;)fV'lCriminal Procedure, .Alive."_Not«ification.__appears to have been issued by the Sta,teuC§oyernlAre.ehts under section 11(1) or 16(1) xofudthe Code" constitute these Family Courfts", as Cou"tt.s__Vof Judicial Magistrates. Therefore it 1' is "cieari..,'that when thestatute confers certain powers ' i,.:p"oh an_fex:i'sti'ng_ Forum, the powers so conferred get actiyated'"insta.nt'aneousEy, unless a contrary intention app,ears.--from-- the Statute itself.
32, T'he" legal position that the Consumer Forums n,eed_«not look forward to the High Court or the State 'Government, to issue any notifications, to enabte z ,-
/.
M 10 them to exercise the powers under Section 27(2), has been clarified by the National Commission, by a letter dated 27.05.2003. The relevant portion of the said letter, issued by Justice D.P.Wadhwa (retired Judge of the Supreme Court) as President of the National Commission, reads as follows: "Resection 2?: Sub4.._f~ Section (3.) creates no difficulty. Sub--section (2) to be read as under: Power of Judicial Magistrate:
the first class for trial of offences under .th'e~ conferred as first portion of this §sub--se'ction 's'Aa'y_s"
"that notwithstanding anything contai'nVed--._iri the"C,o.de , "
of Criminal Procedure" a forur:i_s'h_all have the of Judicial Magistrate of the firstfvfcilass. These powers; thus irnmediateiy standvco.nferred"an,d* wehave not to go either to High Court or5St,ate ego:/é'r:t[m_er~.:. When powers of a Judicial Magvi"straté__V -'fi~rst'~:..'cl.aVss, as Drovide'd"'iir'.-the of_Crimin'ai"' Procedure, stand conferred then a're'to be conducted under the provi:-;V_io'ns Co=d_e,"l.il<e any other Judicial Magistrate will do,_When a~~"Consurner Forum thus has the.«.i-power of .Ju--dicial Magistrate after coming into force amended Section, it has to proceed with "offence as provided under the said Code'. Su'b'5jse,L:tion (3) provides that offences may be tried stamrnalrily and that would mean as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure." The above 2' clafrification, issued by the Nationai Commission, also 2 "'.ha's"statutory force by virtue of Regulation 24 of the H Consumer Protection Regulations, 2003. Section 30- % 4/ 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is no necessity for these Forums and Commissions to await a Notification either from the State Government or form the High Courts, to enable them to exercise those powers of a iudicial Magistrate of First Class. Section 27(2) has not mereiy sanctioned a service connection, but also activated the same instantaneously with_"--,VV"
effect from 15.03.2003. Hence, the District Forums, C V State Commissions and the National Commiss.io.n_4a'reV*2)"
entitled to exercise all the powers"of"'thel.3udic.iAaii«. Magistrate of First Ciass under the:.&Co_die'lVand. t'h.£§ apprehension of the petitioner,__ (or V'of_"the {'?oiice:_. department) that a Notificati'ovnV.V""from 'th.e"r.Sfi:ate.:
Government is necessary, is not..w'ell_fo.unded."--It, is':
made clear that the Poii<:ej--is obiiged"i:_o»_e'x~eCute the warrants issued by the ~l.'{'V)ist,i'i'ct7V State COmmiSSi{3'ii'i..tE:Il'id i{i:a:tion'a.l,A"Comm"ission in the same manner, as warrants issued by competent_ 'Courts_«'o.f,«. Magistrates. These Forums would have 'the'-._pow'er to compei the police to act..«§¥oni'~the w'a.rf,3."ts. issued and recalled and A)"punishmentsyimposed lawfully in exercise of the powers'conferred-.,under section 27(2) of the Act read ' clarifications. l\io costs.
wit'h--.,.theV Co'_deVA[of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the writ»._pet__iti'on«iis dismissed, however, with the above 33 '.
13
10. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision in case of WS SHANTHINIKETAN HQUSING FOUNDATION V/S. BRIG (RETD) J N DEVAIAH & ORS reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2589, wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that the writ petitions challenging the constitu'tio'n7a--!,:."-. validity of sub--sections (2) and (3) of Section "
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended are hereby dismissed, uphoiding of'.,',ttie provision.
11. Section 27 of theCo,_nsum'e"r'itrotection Act"p'r"ovides for imposing penalties for nor.-1--'co'mp'lian_c,e'--.o.f.,'the orders of the Consumer STATE or KARNATAKA V/S. PARMJIT s1Nt:H:&oi2s.V in 11 (2006) CPJ 6 (SC), the H_on'bie "SizlpremeVCou_V_rtVhas' held that District Forum or State .(2om'miVs_s'ion"'oi'_l\iational Commission shall have power of Judiciai"-Maxgist'r_aVte~AV.llf~ivrst Class. Avnilexlhaustive commentary on the Consumer A"ct, 1986, Second Edition 2009, Volume--I, p_'L;bli's.hed'A-- by LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, at page £53 /
2.,"
14
Nos.1381 and 1382, it is mentioned that Section 27 -- Consumer Forums to have magisteriai power (sub--Secti--on (2)). Sub--section (2) opens with a non--obstante&V.,cI_'au'se',~V,.2'2, giving the provision of this sub--section an overrid'in__§ 2 over the relevant provisions of thiém'VCo'de'-4,of.;«C:rilmin'al7 Procedure, 1973. For the purpose of :4i;.ria'i.V_zof that'o»ffeenVc,g~..,:V"
contemplated under sub--section (1.)";:Efi"!.€ State Commission or the Natixonaliii'Co'rnmiVss.i,on, flas"th*eE case may he, shall exercise the Ju.d'il:Ci_a.lv""i?lagistrate of the First Class. operate, irrespective of in the Code of Criminai 'povii'ers';have to be conferred on the District and the National Commission, by:the),'Sta.te"~:~""Covernment independent of ,secti_on the Co'cie~-----«of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by reso,rti'nQ"vt,o"--vs:ub4s:ect.ion (2) of this section itself. On such 2"i-spowersi'b%eing."-eoniiierred on these Forums, each of such .,V_l,i'_j.,FQ'rLi,ms shaVll";.be deemed to be a judicial Magistrate of the class«_. for purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Since such powers have to be conferred on the it» E5 District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission by virtue of the offices or official titles of such Forums, it is implied that the conferment of such powers need not be by name.
13. It is undisputed fact that most of the officers of the Consumer Forums are retired Distric't.__:Jud'g:es.--'% -- Normally, notification will be issued by the Stat_e1_Governmefit? under Section 11(1), 16(1) and 32(1)kfor Procedure for a civil judge to ex'er"c~iise po~.~ei»,¢r diidiicial Magistrate First Class. In th'is_case;"'the"pviresidingiofficers of the Consumer Forum are allretired';Dis«tiri--ct._'and Sessions Judges. It to that the presiding officers of the Consume":Sortilrnfiaréaaualliiih well experienced Judicial officers vyl.;io" i1ave4ad"on_e'thejudicial function of holding trials. Protection Act begins with non~ obsta'nte~i'__clausei wv.i'Vv'T'herefore, it conveys dispensation of Vnotification w_hic~h:"'is to be issued by the procedural law. In flew,' there is no hindrance for the Consumer Forum to "'i.:"actr._1a"s_VV'Judicial Magistrate First Class in the absence of ""/ §:.,/ 17 and requirement of Section 4(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied. Any one can set the criminal law into motion and no specific authorisation is necessary to file the complaint. The complaint is made with the object that the Magistrate should take action. prescribed. The ends of justice should not be allo'-a.redjto"i'be M sacrificed at the altar of mere technicafities. even_:rvvrienV:th:e case is proved to the hilt and the Vaccusedfound_-,ot'herwi--se..VT'* guilty. There is no specific provisio.n:"'i»n the Codiegof VCrim'inal Procedure or in the rules framed étrh'ere;unVd'e_r, how"a criminal complaint has to be drafted." Whats-«hjas is whether the entire siu'b'st'a.niC.e of§t'i1e:"complaint"prima facie makes out an offence to h.ave':been°committed, or whether there is a ground to pre'sur'ne_ojn At~hie"e:ntire reading of the substance the thVat'~----t--he offence is likely to have been co'm_'n'w'a'ittedg."v..4:':"2"heQcomplainant need not be the aggrieved fi"--.....v.perso.nA,any having knowledge of the offence can file .If.comypiaint.~~vffléurther, the complaint need not be filed by a p_e'rs'onVha_ving personal knowledge of the facts of the case or V' eyewitness. Every tiny fact need not be fit]/.
19 of such a statute the dominant purpose underlying the statute had to be borne in mind. In the instant case, the object of Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to the consumer disputes and it is a quqasig» judicial machinery. The Consumer Protection Act contained code. Reguéation 24 of the Consumer M Regulations, 2005, entitles the National"Co'mmi'ssionftVo._issue practice directions from time to time for l:p_ro'perl"c'.r;;.ri.gluct"
the case. Such being the case.it~.u,.1ls..p;;iifficult '"the contention the learned counsel _.fo'r-..t§'3eV"'-»petition'erthat a separate complaint shouid "b%e_"fi'le.dL'.:0e_fo're_~..Lt'he Consumer Forum forI'con'L'ra:§fien.t'iti-in' of the Consumer Protection it it C it C C
16. It the Consumer Forum on .,ord.eA'r"'pa.ssed in C.C.1000/2009 has held that the-,judgmen.t:"de'btor--accused is liable to pay an amount of Cu"s»--..__§'9,94.4$'G/~ complainant. The accused has not _:%'_i's~.._com_Vplied 'witnthe order of the Consumer Forum. Therefore,
5._'_"«t4he.fCons'u.mer Forum in order to implement the provisions of Q,/, 20 Consumer Protection Act invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and converted the execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 200 of Code of Criminai Procedure as complaint. Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act provides.y.tha't-falt-.. the offence under the Act may be tried summariily by.:th"e it Bistrict Forum or the State Commis'si'on'«oAr"..Athe'::§\la_tiona.l Commission, as the case may be. This-_ beingthe i.leg:a§..V""
position, strict procedure of law'-may noti..be~...requ--ére'd' to implement the object and sch_eme..of The'r'efo"re, the contention of the learned coun;sel"fo'Vi";:the'ii'petit'io.ner that the Consumer reolriiih foilowed'._'S'ection 4(2) of the Code of CriminalVV"Procedureifrniaiy._:.n'o,t:'come to his aid. It is the contention of the lea,rn[edC~--.counse| for the petitioner that no :_,;'o'g.niza.n'jcie beeAn"'ta.§»<e'n. In C.C.1000/2009 Consumer Forurn "di're,c'te:d*-.the accused to pay ?9,94,450/-- to the CV'3,¢omplain'ant.y .'T'i;e:; accused has not complied with the same. ..i_f_--«.y_Tahe_re is a\;'eur'ment in the execution petition cum complaint to that the accused has not paid the amount of V' .§f"9V"y94y;45O/-- to the complainant and thereby he has alleged to F. 21 have contravened Section 2"? of the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Forum has taken judicial note of the same, which is sufficient for the purpose of taking cognizance of crime.
17. Taking into consideration of all aspects of and also the material placed on record, in my vielvii, .th.i:s"'i'ss» u not a fit case to exercise power under S5ectionA4'.82_:ofl'Codeiof Criminal Procedure to quash the proceed__in-gs' or t'o._.s'et impugned order dated 26.3.201l3.'--v..s:jThis Crimi'r'.?3u3Cpetivtvilohthis devoid of merits. The obse.rvatipo'n's--:made.'herei'ri"-shall not influence the Consumer Forum lswshiiie__d'eVciding the main matter.
18._ _ In the result, 1'--._pas's the following:
..... ' R D E R is dismissed. Office is directed to V'-.V'».retu rn |ower'l_Cou rt records.
33/19 :§'{§§G§