STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Mr.Sanjeev Walia, son of Late Sh. M.L. Walia, resident of House No. 458, Sector 16, Panchkula.

.… ……Appellant

VERSUS

1.                  N.S. Bhullar, s/o Late Sh. Bir Singh, resident of #1729, Phase V, Mohali.

2.                  Satish Kumar Sikka, s/o Sh.Sada Sikka, resident of #3 1359, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

3.                  V.K. Malkoti, s/o Sh.Shankar Dass Malkoti, resident of #3075/1, H.B.C., Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh.

4.                  V.P. Soni, s/o Late Sh.R.C. Soni, resident of #73, Sector 48-C, HIG Ret,HUDA.

5.                  Sushma Puri, s/o Vinod Kumar Puri, resident of #3155, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

6.                  Krishan Gopal Sandhu, s/o Sh.H.Dass, resident of #2311, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

7.                  Joginder Lal, s/o Lt. Hukum Chand, resident of #499, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

8.                  Jagdish Chauhan, s/o Wazar Chand, resident of House NO.421/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

9.                  G.S. Sandhu, s/o Kartar Chand, resident of #HE72, Phase IX, Mohali.

10.         Vinod Kumar, s/o Sh.Joginder Chand, resident of     #3551, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

11.         B.Mani Deb, s/o Sh.Bissu Kumar Deb, resident of     #1573-A, O.C.F. Estate, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents.

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE:         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the Appellant.

    Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the   

    respondent Nos 1 to 11, alongwith respondent no`s 2,3,4,5,7 and 11 in person.

PER  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             Originally, the appellant filed a Revision Petition. Since, only an appeal against the orders under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as Act only), passed by the District Forum, was maintainable, the Revision Petition, vide separate order, was converted into an appeal. 

2.             This appeal is directed against the orders dated 05.09.2008 and 09.04.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only). Vide order dated 05.09.2008, the judgment-debtor (now appellant) was sentenced, to undergo imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment whereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months, whereas vide order dated 09.04.2010, the District Forum, issued Non-bailable Warrants, against the appellant, in pursuance of the order dated 05.09.2008.

3.             The consumer complainants, numbering 14, were filed by the complainants, against the OPs, (one of whom is the appellant) and the same were allowed vide order dated 17.12.2007, whereby Sanjeev Walia (now appellant), and Lavlesh Lala (OP-3) were jointly and severally directed to return the amount of Rs.9,000/- to each of the complainants, alongwith interest @8% p.a., with effect from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 06.09.2005, till the date of payment and to pay Rs.50,000/- to each of the them. Rs.5,000/- were also awarded as litigation cost, in each of the complaint case. It was further directed that, in case, the amount was not paid, within thirty days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay the same, alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. from the date of order, till realization, and, shall also be liable to punishment, as provided under Section 27 of the Act.

4.             Against the said order, the OPs filed an appeal, before the State Commission. The appeal filed by the OP, namely Sanjeev Walia (now appellant), was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2008. Thereafter, an application under Section 27 of the Act, was filed by the complainants/respondents. Show cause notice was ordered to be issued to Sanjeev Walia (OP/appellant,) for making payment of the amount, failing which he was to make himself liable to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment upto three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- or both.

5.             Show cause notice, was not ordered to be issued against Lavlesh Lala, as the proceedings, against him, were stayed by this Commission.

6.             The show cause notice sent to Sanjeev Walia (OP/now appellant) was received back, with the report of `refusal`. The District Forum, came to the conclusion, that `refusal` was a due service. Neither, Sanjeev Walia, nor his duly authorized representative, appeared, either to make the payment, or to show cause, why he should not be tried, in a summary manner, and punished for non-compliance of the orders dated 17.12.2007 and 15.02.2008. The District Forum, took a view that non-appearance of the OP (Sanjeev Walia) amounted to willful disobedience, to the orders dated 17.12.2007 and 15.02.2008, and he had nothing to say, against the passing of sentence against him.

7.             Accordingly, the District Forum, passed the orders dated 05.09.2008 and 09.04.2010, referred to above.

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/OP. 

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 

10.           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that amicable settlement had been arrived at, between the parties, as a result whereof, the amount settled between them, had already been paid by the appellant, to the respondents. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the object with regard to the compliance of the impugned orders, passed by the District Forum, stood achieved, and now, no useful purpose, shall be served, by sending the appellant/OP, to jail. He prayed for setting aside the orders, impugned, by accepting the appeal.

11.           The Counsel for the respondents, admitted that amicable settlement had been arrived at, between the parties. He also submitted that all the respondents, furnished their affidavits, which have already been taken on record, certifying  the amicable settlement, between the parties. He further submitted that now, no dispute, survives, between the parties after such settlement.

12.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. No doubt, the OP (now appellant), despite his appeal, having been dismissed, by this Commission, did not immediately, comply with the order passed by the District Forum. Ultimately, the District Forum passed the order dated 05.09.2008. Lateron, Non-bailable Warrants, of arrest of the OP (now appellant), were issued vide order dated 09.04.2010. As admitted by the Counsel for the parties, amicable settlement has been arrived at, between the parties. This fact is also evident, from the affidavits of the respondents, which have been submitted by the Counsel for the respondents, and taken on record.  The object of the Act, is only to ensure the compliance of the orders, passed by the Consumer Foras. Its object is not to punish a person, who has complied with the order, though belatedly. Since, the amicable settlement, has already been arrived at, between the parties, and the entire amount, has also been paid, by the appellant, and now no dispute survives, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose, shall be served, by sending the appellant/OP to jail. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 05.09.2008 and 09.04.2010, passed by the District Forum, are liable to be set aside.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned orders are set aside. Non-Bailable Warrants, already issued, are ordered to be recalled back, unexecuted, immediately.

14.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced.

19^th May, 2011.

                                                                             Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

        PRESIDENT

           Sd/-                              

                                                                [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                MEMBER