BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F. A. 401/2010 against I.A. 67/2010 in EA 9/2009
in C.C 105/2006, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
1) G.P.R. Rep. by its Chairman
G. Punna Rao, S/o. Late Lakshminarayana
Age: 54 years, Office at 6-3-788/32/2
II Floor, Main Road, Ameerpet
Hyderabad-500 016.
2) G. Punna Rao, S/o. Late Lakshminarayana
Age: 54 years, R/o. 6-3-788/32/2
II Floor, Main Road, Ameerpet
Hyderabad-500 016. *** Appellants/JDrs.
Ops.
And
C. Nirmala, D/o. Smt. C. Jyothsna
Rep. by GPA Sri C. Venugopal,
S/o Late . Dr. C. R. Rao
R/o. 12-13-257, Brundavan Residency
Street No. 8, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
F.A 402/2010 against I.A. 71/2010 in EA 13/2009
in C.C 469/2007, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
1) G.P.R. Rep. by its Chairman
G. Punna Rao, S/o. Late Lakshminarayana
Age: 54 years, Office at 6-3-788/32/2
II Floor, Main Road, Ameerpet
Hyderabad-500 016.
2) G. Punna Rao, S/o. Late Lakshminarayana
Age: 54 years, R/o. 6-3-788/32/2
II Floor, Main Road, Ameerpet
Hyderabad-500 016. *** Appellants/JDrs.
Ops.
And
C. Nirmala, D/o. Smt. C. Jyothsna
Rep. by GPA Sri C. Venugopal,
S/o Late . Dr. C. R. Rao
R/o. 12-13-257, Brundavan Residency
Street No. 8, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Subash
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. S. Subrahmanya Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) These two appeals are preferred by the appellants against the common order of the Dist. Forum in imposing conditions while releasing the appellant on bail.
2) Admit. Heard both sides.
3) The appellants in these cases are opposite parties in various complaints filed, against whom orders were passed by the Dist. Forum directing them to pay the amounts covered under various fixed deposit receipts (FDRs). When the said orders were not complied the respondents herein viz., the complainants had moved the Dist. Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to punish the appellant for non-compliance of orders an offence under the said provision wherein it could be tried summarily by the Dist. Forum invoking provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
4) When the appellant did not appear pursuant to the application filed u/s 27 of the C.P. Act, the Dist. Forum had issued NBW for arrest of appellant and on his production he was remanded to judicial custody.
5) The appellant had moved bail applications alleging that he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the complainants wherein he made certain payments and further agreed to pay balance in three instalments on 30.4.2010, 30.5.2010, 30.6.2010. The complainants had received part payment and agreed to receive balance of amount as offered by the appellant and filed part satisfaction memo. From the order of the Dist. Forum it seems that when these bail applications were moved, the learned counsel for the complainants endorsed that the appellant be released on bail by imposing certain conditions.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the undertaking executed by the appellant and in the light of MOU between the parties directed the appellant “to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 3 crores (Rupees Three crores only) and on his depositing his title deeds worth the said amount with Encumbrance Certificate for 15 years and valuation certificate issued by the concerned Registrar with two sureties each in like sum (Rupees three crores only). The opposite party/respondent/petitioner is further directed to attend Punjagutta Police Station on every Monday and Thursday between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m. and sign in the register specially maintained there, until further orders. “
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants preferred these appeals contending that the conditions were onerous. The Dist. Forum ought to have accepted the security given by him. When he himself came forward to offer security and pledged the immovable property, the Dist. Forum should not have rejected the security produced by him. He had in fact produced the original documents along with Encumbrance Certificate and valuation certificate issued by government licensed valuer to an extent of Ac. 19.34 guntas in Ranga Reddy Dist. Therefore he prayed that the rejection of sureties is not proper and that he should be released on bail. Therefore he sought the conditions imposed by the Dist. Forum be set-aside and modify suitably.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that there are several cases filed against the appellants for recovery of amount covered under FDRs.
10) The learned counsel argued across the Bar that amount due by the appellant would be around Rs. 3 crores and in fact a petition is filed before the Hon’ble High Court wherein advocates were appointed as Administrators, who are going to convene a meeting shortly to thrash out the entire issue, by satisfying all the consumers in various cases pending before various fora. However, the proceedings are not filed in court to appreciate the said contention.
11) Evidently the MOU is not between all the consumer but between the appellant and the complainants who had obtained orders in their favour. It is between the parties to the lis. However, it is not proper to take cognizance of these cases in view of the fact that the complainants who initiated the proceedings had endorsed no objection. We may state herein that the complainants who had initiated the proceedings did not withdraw the proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that they had entered into an MOU. What all they stated was that the appellant could be released relaxing conditions. The Dist. Forum noted in its order that the learned counsel for the appellant requested to release the opposite party on bail by imposing conditions.
12) The Dist. Forum after considering all these facts imposed conditions which have adverted to at para 6 above. In the light of various claims pending against the appellant, and in the light of the fact that the Dist. Forum after considering the issue before it had passed a reasonable order wherein the interests of complainants as well as appellant had been taken into account. Since the complainants did not oppose granting of bail, however requested for certain conditions to be imposed, the Dist. Forum has rightly granted bail, however by imposing certain conditions, obviously keeping the quantum of amount covered under these disputes. In view of the fact that huge amounts are involved in various complaints which the appellant had to pay, the conditions imposed by the Dist. Forum cannot be said to be arbitrary. Admittedly P.P. proceedings are still pending for adjudication. Therefore releasing on bail cannot be made on the terms that complainants intended in this regard.
13) Accepting sureties, imposing certain terms while releasing a person on bail is in the discretion of the court which grants the bail, unless the conditions are arbitrary, oppressive or onerous. Ordinarily this Commission will not interfere where the matters are in the realm of discretion. We do not see any indiscretion on the part of the Dist. Forum, while releasing the appellant on bail. It is just and proper.
14) In the result the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 30. 03. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
