BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.130/2009 against P.P. 33/2006 C.C. 168/2005,
Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
1. Creative Constructions
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Near Chandra Mahal, G.T. Road
Srikakulam.
2. Munni Srinivasa Rao
S/o. Kalidasu Appa Rao
Proprietor-cum-Partner
Creative Constructions
Near Chandra Mahal, G.T. Road
Srikakulam. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties And
1. Malla Reddy Babu Rao (Died)
2. Mallareddy Krishna Kumari
W/o. Late Babu Rao
3. Mallareddy Vijayalakshmi
D/o. Late Babu Rao
4. Mallareddy Shanmukha Srinivasa Rao
S/o. Late Babu Rao
5. Mallareddy Umalakshmi
D/o. Late Babu Rao
6. Malla Reddy Rajayalakshmi
D/o. Late Babu Rao
7. Mallareddy Lakshmikanthamma
W/o. Late Appa Rao.
R3 to R6 being minors rep. by R2
All are R/o. Bavaji Thota, Balaga
Srikakulam Town & Dist.
*** Respondents/
Complainants.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. A. Rama Rao.
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. V.G.S.Rao.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum dt. 30.1.2009 in issuing NBW for non-compliance of order in C.C. No. 168/2005 dt. 27.2.2006.
2) The appellant alleges that he filed an appeal against the ex-parte order passed by the Dist. Forum and the same is pending, and in the meantime when the complainant filed penalty proceedings the Dist. Forum without even enquiry issued NBWs. He contends that since the appeals are pending and that without giving an opportunity he could not be sent to prison.
3) The point that arises for consideration is whether issuance of NBWs by the Dist. Forum is illegal?
4) It is an undisputed fact that on the complaint filed by late Malla Reddy Babu Rao the Dist. Forum directed the appellant to execute registered sale deeds for plots Nos. 1 to 4 on payment of balance of sale consideration together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- by its order dt. 27.2.2006. The appeal preferred against the said order along with delay petition were dismissed today confirming the orders of the Dist. Forum. The LRs of complainant viz., wife and children filed a petition u/s 27 of C.P. Act. When the appellant did not choose to appear before the Dist. Forum, NBW was issued holding that there was no tenable defence.
5) Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred contending that the procedure adopted by the Dist. Forum is not correct. Evidently the Dist. Forum cannot be found fault with for issuance of NBW for non-appearance of the appellant since the proceedings u/s 27 of the C.P. Act are to be made by recoursing to Section 200 Cr.P.C. The proceedings are summary in nature.
6) The nature of proceedings u/s 27 of the C.P. Act is made clear in Sriram Builders Vs. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2010 (1) ALD 710 (DB) the High Court of A.P. went to the extent by stating:
“The petitioner contends that the State Commission should have followed the procedure under Sections 200 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while entertaining P.P.No.35 of 2007. It is also contended that the said P.P is barred by limitation in view of rule 14 of the Consumer Protection Rules. The petitioner should have urged these aspects before the State Commission where P.P. is pending. Even though the State Commission has got powers of issuing arrest warrants and committing the non-complying persons to prison like a Magistrate, the State Commission need not follow Sections 200 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while entertaining P.P and issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. P.P. is not a private complaint. It is only a petition filed for disobedience of orders issued by the State Commission. Secondly, order of the State Commission in CD No.58 of 2002 is merged in order passed by the National Commission in FA No.435 of 2002. Therefore, period of limitation, if any has to be computed from the date of order of the State Commission.”
However, the Dist. Forum on the ground that the appellant did not present, and mentioning that he had no valid defence could not have issued NBW in order to send him to imprisonment. The Dist. Forum has to pass orders mentioning as to the period of imprisonment or fine or both as contemplated u/s 27(3) of the C.P. Act. The Dist. Forum has to necessarily issue show cause notice as to why action should not be initiated against him, and after recording his statement could pass whatever order it thinks fit in the circumstances keeping in mind Section 27 of the C.P. Act in the matter.
7) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum in issuing NBW against the appellant. Both parties are directed to appear before the Dist. Forum on 19. 01. 2011 without insisting on fresh notice. In case the appellant fails to appear before the Dist. Forum on the said day, the Dist. Forum is free from issuing summons/warrants for appearance of appellant and on such appearance it would proceed according to law as indicated above. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 29. 12. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
