Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Execution no(s). 5/SC/2003 to 7/SC/2003 and 8/SC/2005 to 10/SC/2005. By the impugned order, the State Commission has sentenced the appellant-Prem Chandra Varshney to undergo simple imprisonment of three months for not satisfying the award made by the State Commission in complaint case no(s). 84/SC/1994, 83/SC/1994 and 127/SC/1994 and has directed that warrants of arrest be issued against him and he be sent to jail to serve out the said sentence.

2.      We have heard Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellants but had not the occasion to hear the say of the respondents as none appeared for them at the time of hearing of the appeals.

3.      Mr. Gupta on the strength of the orders passed by the State Commission subsequent to the impugned order submits that the award/decree in all the four cases as passed by the State Commission has been fully satisfied and, therefore, the order passed by the State Commission directing the arrest of the appellant should be set aside. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the orders dated 07.8.2008, 3.9.2008 and 3.10.2008 which read as under:-

“Order dated 07.8.2008 passed in Execution Case No(s). 8/2005, 9/2005 & 10/2005

As all these three execution petitions have common features, they are taken up together for orders.

Mr. O.P. Duel, learned counsel for the executants/decree holders and Mr. B.K. Ypadhyay, learned counsel for Glass Ice & Cold Storage have jointly submitted an application on 31.7.2008 stating therein that the order dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been carried out. Mr. Duel submits that although 50% of the original amount had to be paid in full and final settlement by virtue of four installments, the judgment-debtors have paid the said amount by way of two installments  only. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted a copy of the compromise whereby the entire claim of the three sets of decree-holders was settled for a total sum of Rs.9,55,020.50, the details of which may be furnished as below:-

1.                      Ex. Case No.8/2005 Murari Lal Sharma & 14 others Rs.3,39,663.50

2.                      Ex. Case No.9/2005 Avadhesh Kumar & 14 others Rs.3,04,615.50

3.                      Ex. Case No. 10/2005 Rajendra Kumar & 20 others Rs.3,10,741.50

Both the counsel have verified the said settlement duly authenticating it. We record the above authentication.

This carries out the compliance of the order dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.571 of 2007.

Order dated 03.09.2008 passed in Ex. No. 06/03

An affidavit has been filed by judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has paid the full decreetal amount in full satisfaction of the decree holder and nothing remain to be paid to the decree holder. This has been accepted both by the judgment debtor, his counsel and the learned counsel for the decree holder, Mr. O.P. Duvel in their application.

The obligation and liability on the judgment debtor is discharged fully to the satisfaction of the decree holder. This execution case is thus, disposed off.”

Order dated 03.10.2008, which is in Hindi, is reproduced as under:

Reproduced in Hindi…

4.      It would appear that these orders came to be passed by the State Commission pursuant to the directions given by this Commission in its proceedings dated 05.10.2007 which reads as under:-

“In this appeal, challenge is to the order dated 30.8.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow passed in six Execution petitions filed by the different decree holders. By the said order the State Commission has convicted the appellant u/s 27 C.P. Act and sentenced him to undergo sentences for various periods. On 04.10.2007 time was taken by the appellant to file affidavit, receipts and Memos of understanding arrived at with the decree holders. Memo’s of understanding at pages 6 to 8 would show that the decree holders have allegedly agreed to receive 50% of the original amount without interest in full and final settlement of their decrees and this payment is to be made in four installments. First installment of 25% is to be paid by 15.10.2007. In case the decree holders have reached settlement as reflected in three Memos of understanding, then the appellant should approach the State Commission, Executing Court to have the settlement recorded by it. We postpone the appeal for admission hearing to 23.10.2007 to enable the appellant to approach the State Commission for getting the satisfaction of the decrees recorded by the State Commission.”

5.      A perusal of the above orders would show that after the passing of the impugned order, parties have amicably settled the matter by paying certain amounts under the award/decree passed by the State Commission in the complaints and consequently on payment of the agreed amount, the awards were recorded as satisfied.

6.      In view of the above developments and the factual position, we are of the opinion that the directions given by the State Commission for sentencing the appellant to undergo a simple imprisonment cannot be enforced now. We, therefore, dispose of all these appeals with the observation that the directions contained in the impugned order in regard to the arrest of the appellant in order to serve out the sentence will not be enforced by any authority.