BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 33/2015
1. | The Selco Solar Light Pvt.Ltd., Regd.Office at #313, 12th Main, 15th Cross, 5th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560078, Represented by its Authorized Signatory- Sri Sudhir .G.Kulkarni, S/o G.N.Kulkarni | ……Appellant/s |
2. | The Selco Solar Light (P) Ltd., Branch:Belgaum, 20/5, Velangi Building, Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum-6. | |
V/s
Sri. Ramesh, S/o Gopal Kamath, Major, R/o Kabbur, Taluk:Chikodi, District:Belgaum-24. | .…Respondent/s |
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant/JDr in Execution Petition No.31/2012 preferred this appeal against the conviction order passed by the District Commission which sentenced the JDr to suffer simple imprisonment for period of one month and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and also the said complaint was allowed and directed this appellant/Opposite Party/JDR to pay an amount of Rs.35,427/- within 45 days from the date of order. Against the said order, this appellant preferred an appeal before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission vide Appeal No.990/2012 and deposited a statutory amount of Rs.18,500/- on 18.05.2012.
2. After hearing, the appeal was dismissed and the direction was given to the Registry to send the amount in deposit to District Commission which is payable to the DHR/respondent/ complainant. Apart from that, the JDr had deposited an amount of Rs.18,813/- through demand draft on 04.02.2013 in the name of Assistant Registrar of District Commission and this JDR has complied entire order. Inspite of noticing all these payments, the District Commission had convicted this appellant/JDr without any reasons. Hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and to close the Execution Petition as fully complied in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard arguments.
4. On perusal of the certified copies of the order, memorandum of appeal and other documents produced, the appeal preferred by this appellant/JDr challenging the order passed in CC.No.679/2010. It is also noticed that the DHR/complainant had deposited amount of Rs.18,500/- on 18.05.2012 before this Commission. The appeal was disposed on 08.06.2012 and direction was given to the Registry to transmit the amount deposited to the District Commission which is payable to the DHR. In the meantime, in the Execution Petition No.31/2012, this appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.18,813/- through Demand Draft on 04.02.2013 and same was accepted by the District Commission also. Inspite of making all these payments, the District Commission proceeded to try the Execution Petition under Sec.27 of Consumer Protection Act and convicted this appellant u/s 255 (ii) of Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of one month and directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as fine. The reasons assigned for conviction of this appellant is that though the amount made by JDr in the name of Assistant Registrar of the District Commission does not amounts to compliance of the order and also mentioned that mere deposit of caution deposit before this Commission also not amounts as compliance of the order, hence, convicted.
5. We are of the opinion that the reasons arrived for conviction of this appellant is not reasonable and not in accordance with law. The appellant/JDr has complied the order by making deposit of Rs.18,850/- which is the balance amount apart from deposit of Rs.18,500/- before this Commission. In total we noticed that the appellant/ JDr has paid the entire amount as directed by the District Commission. Once the amount was deposited by the appellant/JDr in the name of the Registrar, it is nothing but compliance of the order. The DHR has to file voucher for release of the amount, but, the District Commission without considering the deposited amount had convicted this appellant which according to us bad in Law. We hold the JDr/Appellant had complied the order. Hence, in view of compliance, the conviction order passed in the Execution Petition by the District Commission is hereby set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the Order passed in the Execution Petition is hereby set aside and Execution Petition No.31/2012 is closed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Appellant/Opposite party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
P*
