Punjab

Sangrur

EA/90/2015

ATAM SWARUP JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D., PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

By Post

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Execution No.:   90

                                                Instituted on:      21.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       07.07.2015

 

Atam Swarup Jindal son of Shri Hem Raj Jindal, R/o House No.98, Rose Avenue, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant/DH

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.

2.     SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City-1, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite party/JDs.

 

For the complainant/DH:      In person.

For OP/JDs                   :   Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Atam Swarup Jindal, complainant/Decree Holder (referred to as DH in short) has preferred the present execution application against the opposite parties/JDs (referred to as JDs in short) on the ground that earlier complainant/DH filed a complaint before this Forum which was decided on 04.12.2014 in favour of the complainant and following order was passed:-

“In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5250/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation in full. OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses.”

 

2.             Further case of the complainant/DH is that the OP/JDs have miserably failed to comply with the above said orders passed by this Forum.  So, the complainant/DH has filed the present execution application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has prayed that the OP/JDs be summoned and sent to imprisonment for a period of three years for not complying with the orders of this Forum.

 

3.             After receipt of the execution application, show cause notice to the OP/JDs under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was issued for 01.07.2015 and the OP/JDs appeared through Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

4.             It is worth mentioning here that the OP/JDs sent to the DH a cheque for Rs.2000/- vide letter dated 10.6.2015, a copy of which is also on record, only after filing of the present execution application.  Further a cheque bearing dated 2.7.2015 for Rs.5722/- was delivered to the DH along with a letter dated 02.07.2015.

 

5.             It is not in dispute that the complaint was allowed on 4.12.2014 and a certified copy of the order was sent to the parties on 5.1.2015 meaning thereby the same must have been reached to the Ops by 10.1.2015 and the Op was to comply with the orders passed by this Forum by 10.02.2015. 

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that the Ops did not comply with the orders within the stipulated period of thirty days after receipt of the copy of the order. Rather the OPs/JDs complied with the orders only after filing the present execution application by the complainant/DH.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not comply with the orders in time, nor the OPs  have filed any appeal against that order of this Forum, before the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab.  However, the learned counsel for the Op/JD has vehemently contended that earlier the amount of Rs.2000/- has been paid vide cheque dated 9.6.2015 and further sum of Rs.5250/- has been transferred in sundry charges.  But, the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that actually the amount of Rs.5250/- was transferred in sundry charges and a credit of the same amount was ever given to the complainant/DH. Moreover, there was no order of transferring the amount in the sundry charges. Further it is worth mentioning here that the OP/JD paid an amount of Rs.5722/- to the complainant vide cheque number 520055 dated 2.7.2015 only on 2.7.2015.  It further clearly reveals that the Op/JDs intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Forum and harassed the complainant/DH without any reason.  We further feel that it is a fit case where the Op/JDs deserves to be penalized under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further the Hon’ble Apex Court  in Ravinder Kaur versus Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004(SC) 904 has observed that the Cou\rts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruit of the decree obtained by them.  These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.    In the circumstances, we feel that the OP/JDs are liable to be punished in view of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for non compliance of the orders passed by this Forum despite the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case and taking a lenient view against the OP/JDs, we impose a fine of Rs.5,000/- upon the OP/JDs, which  shall be deposited with the State of Punjab within a period of ten days from today, failing which the OP/JDs shall go for a simple imprisonment for one month.  It is, however, made clear that the OP/JDs shall recover the amount of fine from the guilty officer, who failed to comply with the orders of this Forum in time as the state exchequer cannot be burdened due to the fault of the guilty officer. A copy of such order recovering the amount of fine from the guilty officer be also submitted to this Forum for perusal on passing such order of recovery.

 

 

8.             A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                July 7, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                                                  

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member