State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Awareness Group ... vs Deepak Mahajan on 28 February, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 398 of 2012 Date of Institution : 30.11.2012 Date of Decision : 28.02.2013 National Consumer Awareness Group Society, Regd. Office # 175, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, through its Chairman Sh.P.J.S.Mehta. IInd Address:- Sh P.J.S. Mehta, Resident of H.No.214, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. Appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party V e r s u s Deepak Mahajan son of Late Sh.K.L.Mahajan, presently residing at House No.5810, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Decree Holder/Complainant Appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Col. P.J.S. Mehta (Retd.), Chairman, in person, for the appellant.
Sh.
Vivek Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal, under Section 27A, is directed against the order dated 15.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Criminal Petition No.133 of 2012, in Consumer Complaint No. 235 of 2012, was allowed, and the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor (now appellant), was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. It was also directed that since Mr. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party Society/Judgment Debtor, had not appeared, on that date, therefore, his presence be secured through non-bailable warrant of arrest for 30.11.2012.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.235 of 2012, against the Opposite Party Society, alleging that he became a member of the same, in the year 2005, vide certificate dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure C-1), and deposited a sum of Rs.1,51,000/-, towards booking of HIG 4 Bed Room Flat (1550 Sq. Ft.) vide receipt Annexure C-2.
Thereafter, on receipt of the letter dated 01.07.2006 (Annexure C-4) from the Opposite Party, for deposit of another sum of Rs.97,500/-, as balance margin amount, by 20.7.2006, the complainant sent a registered letter (copy of registered receipt whereof is Annexure C-7 dated 17.07.2006), to the Opposite Party, with a request to provide him the necessary documents, such as letter of allotment, approved site map, no objection certificate for transfer from Society etc. etc. However, no documents were supplied, to the complainant, by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Opposite Party, held a meeting on 11.01.2009, wherein, it was assured to all the members of the Society, that, as and when the land was allotted, the construction of the flats would be started, but the construction did not start till January 2011. The complainant asked the Opposite Party, to either issue him the allotment letter or refund the amount of Rs.1,51,000/-, deposited by him, alongwith interest, but all in vain. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), referred to above, was filed, claiming various reliefs.
3. The District Forum accepted the Consumer Complaint, vide order dated 30.07.2012, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-
In view of the foregoings, taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint having lot of merit, weight and substance, must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.1,51,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its deposit i.e. 19.8.2005 till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
This order be complied with, by the OP within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its deposit i.e. 19.8.2005 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost as aforesaid.
4. Since, the order dated 30.07.2012, passed by the District Forum, in Consumer Complaint No.235 of 2012, was not complied with, by the Opposite Party, Criminal Petition No.133 of 2012, under Section 27 of the Act, for enforcement of the same, was filed by the Decree Holder/complainant.
5. Notice of the Criminal Petition was issued to the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, calling upon it to show cause, as to why, the Petition be not tried, in summary manner, and punishment be not awarded, for non compliance of the order dated 30.07.2012.
6. Notice was duly received by Sh. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor.
7. Sh. P.J. S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor, appeared before the District Forum, and requested a date, for compliance of the order dated 30.07.2012. The Criminal Petition was adjourned, but the order was not complied with, by the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor.
8. Thereafter, reply to the Criminal Petition, under Section 27 of the Act, was filed and six months time was sought by Sh. P.J. S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor, for compliance of the order, passed by the District Forum, in the Consumer Complaint.
9. The District Forum heard the arguments, addressed by the Counsel for the complainant/Decree Holder, Sh. P.J. S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor, in person, and passed the order, referred to, in the opening paragraph of the instant order.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, under Section, 27-A of the Act, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party /Judgment Debtor.
11. We have heard Col. P.J.S Mehta (Retd.) Chairman, in person, for the appellant, Counsel for the respondent, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
12. Col. P.J.S Mehta (Retd.), submitted that the Society of which, he is the Chairman, was launched to build houses/flats, for its members. He further submitted that when the respondent/Decree Holder/complainant, became a member of the said Society, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,51,000/-. He further submitted that, with the contribution made by the members, land was purchased in village Chhapar Cheri, now Sector 92, Mohali, in June 2005. He further submitted that the case for construction on the land was placed before GAMADA, and also, before the Chief Minister of Punjab, by the Society, vide letter dated 04.06.2008. He further submitted that, in the meanwhile, total land, in Sector 92, Mohali, was declared as an Institutional land, by the Government of Punjab. He further submitted that, thereafter, the meeting of the Society was called, and it was decided by all the members of the Society, to sell the land, so that money could be refunded, to its members. He further submitted that the appellant Society had refunded money of more than 100 members, totalling to Rs.2,21,18,000/-who approached the said Society, in time. He further submitted that the Society had given a number of advertisements, in the newspapers, for the sale of land, in question, so that the money could be refunded to the remaining members, but to no avail. He further submitted that, as and when, the land was sold, the amount would be refunded. He further submitted that, however, in pursuance of the order of this Commission, passed in the appeal, a sum of Rs.2,93,350.05Ps., including interest, has already been deposited, by the appellant. He further submitted that there was no intention, on the part of the appellant, to defy the order of the District Forum, deliberately.
13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder/complainant, submitted that this being an appeal, against the order passed in Criminal Petition under Section 27 of the Act, the pleas taken by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, on merits of the Consumer Complaint, could not be taken into consideration. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, passed in Consumer Complaint No.235 of 2012, on 30.07.2012, had attained finality, as no appeal against the same was filed. He further submitted that since the order dated 30.07.2012, was not complied with, by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, the District Forum, rightly passed the order, in Criminal Petition aforesaid. He further submitted that if the amount, which has been deposited by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, is released, in favour of the respondent/Decree Holder/complainant, he would have no objection, to the acceptance of appeal.
14. It may be stated here, that this appeal is against the order, passed under Section 27 of the Act, by the District Forum. Under these circumstances, the pleas taken by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, in its written version, before the Consumer Fora, in the Consumer Complaint, cannot be re-agitated in this appeal. The order dated 30.07.2012, passed by the District Forum, in Consumer Complaint no.235 of 2012, which has attained finality, was not complied with, by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, within the stipulated period. Since, all the pleas, which were taken by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, in the Consumer Complaint, were duly taken into consideration, and, ultimately, the order dated 30.07.2012, was passed, which has attained finality, the same cannot be re-opened again.
15. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum, adopted the correct procedure, in accordance with law, before passing the order of sentence, as also fine, against Mr. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party or not? It may be stated here, that originally the complaint was accepted by the District Forum, and vide its order dated 30.07.2012, the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, was directed to pay the amount, mentioned therein. The appellant/Judgment Debtor/ Opposite Party, did not comply with the order of the District Forum, despite offering it sufficient opportunity. When the Criminal Petition/Execution Application was filed, for enforcement of the order dated 30.07.2012, notice of the same (Criminal Petition) was issued to the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, calling upon it to show cause, as to why, the Petition be not tried in summary manner and punishment be not awarded for non-compliance of the same. The said notice was duly received by Sh. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor, who appeared before the District Forum and requested for a date, for compliance of the order dated 30.07.2012, but, the same (order) was not complied with. Thereafter, six months time, sought by Sh. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor, for compliance of the order dated 30.07.2012, passed by the District Forum, in the Consumer Complaint, was not granted by the District Forum. Thus, the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, failed to comply with the order. The summary procedure was only required to be adopted, by the District Forum, while deciding the Criminal Petition/Execution Application, for awarding sentence, as also fine, to the Opposite Party. In the instant case, due compliance of the principles of natural justice, was made. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the procedure adopted by the District Forum, in awarding sentence, as also fine, was, in any way, illegal.
16. The total amount of Rs.2,93,350.05Ps, including interest, has already been deposited, by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, in this Commission. The object of the Act, is only to ensure the compliance of the orders, passed by the Consumer Foras. Its object is not to punish a person, who has complied with the order, though belatedly. Since, the entire amount, as awarded by the District Forum, vide order dated 30.07.2012, has already been deposited, by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, in this Commission, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose, shall be served, by sending Sh. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, to jail. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice, would be adequately met, if the impugned order is set aside.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 15.11.2012, is set aside. Non-Bailable Warrants, if already issued, against Sh. P.J.S. Mehta, Chairman of the appellant/Judgment Debtor in Criminal Petition No.133 of 2012, be recalled back, unexecuted, immediately. The District Forum concerned be intimated at once.
18. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
28.02.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg