Heard Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.  Inspite of service through publication, none is present on behalf of the respondent.  Therefore, the appeal is being heard in absence of the respondent.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.09.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 295 of 2012; Sh. Jaiveer Singh Vs. M/s Spice Mobility Limited and another. 

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the District Forum has erred in law in directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the District Forum and the District Forum has not given any finding for what reason, this amount is being directed to be deposited, whether it will be paid as compensation to the respondent – complainant or it will remain with the District Forum.  So far as the amount of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the District Forum is concerned, the District Forum has directed that the said amount be paid to the respondent – complainant towards cost of the mobile handset.  The appellant is ready to pay the said amount to the respondent – complainant and the learned counsel for the appellant is not seriously challenging this part of the order.

Since the District Forum has not disclosed any reason for what purpose sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been directed to be deposited by the appellant, therefore, the said part of the order, whereby direction was given to the appellant – opposite party No. 1 to deposit sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the District Forum is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.  It appears that the said amount has been imposed by the District Forum upon the appellant in the form of penalty.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Amit Swami Vs. Coca Cola India Limited and others; II (2007) CPJ 256 (NC), has held that the Commission can not pass any order for levy of penalty being credited in Consumer Welfare Fund. 

In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed.  The appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent – complainant, as directed by the District Forum.  Order impugned dated 28.09.2013 passed by the District Forum stands modified accordingly in the above terms.  No order as to costs.