1.                     This is an appeal filed against the order of conviction of the appellant for two years and ordering him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which he would suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) vide order dated 25.3.2009 passed in criminal complaint case No.129 of 2008 : Ravi Kumar and others Vs. Sh. Ajay Rana as well as against order dated 13.8.2008 passed in main complaint case No.545 of 2008 vide which OPs had been directed to refund Rs.16,250/- of Ravi Kumar; Rs.10,500/- to Ashu Kumar and Rs.5,000/- to Sudhir Kumar and OPs were also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- for being paid as compensation to each complainant and the complainants were also held entitled to cost quantified as Rs.2,500/-.

2.                     Briefly in their complaint against the OPs, the complainants had alleged that they had taken admission in the OP Institute for a Diploma Course i.e. Diploma in Medical Laboratory on 8.8.2006 and had deposited admission fee of Rs.5,000/- and subsequently paid monthly fee of Rs.1,250/- and thereafter, also paid examination fee of Rs.8,500/-. In all, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.36,600/- to the OP Institute. The duration of the course was for two years. However, after spending a period of 15 months, the complainants came to know that OP Institute had failed to provide the requisite services as per its promise. It has further been averred by the complainants that on a criminal complaint filed against the OP Institute by a student namely Abhimanyu, the police ceased the bogus and blank degrees and diplomas from the institute. Alleging the act and conduct of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint had been filed by the complainants Sh. Ravi Kumar, Sh. Ashu Kumar and Sh. Sudhir Kumar.

3.                     OPs were duly served in the complaint case but none appeared on their behalf and therefore, they were adjudged exparte vide order dated 31.7.2008.

4.                     The learned  District Forum having gone through the record of the complaint case came to the conclusion that the complainants had sufficiently proved their case and were of the opinion that in the name of education, OPs had been running teaching shop  to entrap the innocent, simple and unsuspecting students in their net in order to make quick and easy money by fleecing them through flashy advertisements of bright future. Terming this as an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complaint was allowed and the OPs were given directions as mentioned above vide order dated 13.8.2008. Since the orders dated 13.8.2008 was not complied with, the complainants filed an execution application against Sh. Ajay Rana. A notice of the same was issued to Sh. Ajay Rana through Superintendent of Police, Burial Jail, Sector 45, Chandigarh. However, this was received back in original with the remarks that the accused Ajay Rana had been released on bail on 27.9.2008. Accordingly, this Show Cause Notice was again sent dasti through office Process Server and was also ordered to be issued for 23.3.2009 to the OP at his residential address. OP had been duly served by the courier as well as dasti but on 23.3.2009, neither  OP Ajay Rana nor anybody else appeared on his behalf to make payment or to show cause why he should not be tried under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for non compliance of the order dated 13.8.2008. The case was adjourned to 25.3.2009 but none appeared again on behalf of Ajay Rana. Since, there was no stay against the payment to be made by Ajay Rana and he had been willfully disobeying the order, the learned District Forum held the view that there was no reason as to why OP should not have complied with the order dated 13.8.2008. Guided by the following judgments regarding the action to be taken in the case of non compliance of the orders of District Forum: -

(a)    State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwa Bharathi House Building Coop. Society and Others, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412;

(b)   State of Karnataka Vs. Paramjit Singh and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 49;

(c)   P. Dinakaran Vs. Janak Raj Chopra and others; 2006(2) CPC 657;

(d)   Rani Singh Vs. M/s Saini Cold Store & Ice Factory and another;

(e)   M/s Golden Forest (India) Ltd. Vs. Satwinder Bedi; 2002 (2) CPC 536;

(f)    M/s Wheel World Vs. Jagjit Singh Kang and another, 1999 (1) CLT 507;

the learned District Forum having given sufficient opportunity to OP Ajay Rana for a period of seven months was of the view that it was a fit case for application of provisions of Section 27 of C. P. Act. The learned District Forum, therefore, passed the order of conviction against Sh. Ajay Rana as stated in the earlier part of the order.

5.                     Aggrieved by the impugned orders of learned District Forum, Sh. Ajay Rana has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notices were sent to the respondents and the record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum concerned. Sh. P. C. Rana, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant Sh. Ajay Rana whereas Sh. Raman Lal Gupta, Advocate represented the respondents/complainants. 

6.                     Sh. R. C. Rana, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sh. Ajay Rana/ Appellant submitted that in the complaint case filed by the complainants, Sh. Ajay Rana had not been duly served and was, therefore, unaware of the proceedings and had been denied the right to defect himself. He further submitted that at the time of filing the complaint, Sh. Ajay Rana was a minor and he had no role to play in the running of the institution, which admittedly was being run by his father Sh. Des Raj. The learned counsel, therefore, emphatically submitted that since the Appellant Sh. Ajay Rana had no role to play in the running of the institution and had also not been duly given the opportunity to defend himself in the complaint case, the order convicting him for non implementation of the decree is illegal and he, therefore, prayed that the order dated 13.8.2008 qua the Appellant be quashed and also prayed that the conviction in the execution proceeding be also set aside.

7.                     In response, Sh. Raman Lal Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that Sh. Ajay Rana was involved in the running of the institution along with his father and he also submitted that the Appellant had been duly served by him in the Civil Court where the criminal proceedings against them were going on and therefore, there was no truth in the pleading of the Appellant that he was not served in the complaint case. The learned counsel also stressed on the point that the OPs were running a fake institute and was indulging in unfair trade practice as very correctly observed by the learned District Forum.

8.                     We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9.                     The Appellant has raised two contentions, firstly that he was not served in the complaint case and thus, was denied the opportunity of being heard and to defend himself and secondly that he had nothing to do with the institute and therefore, no liability for any unfair trade practice by the OP institute can be placed on him.

10.                   A perusal of order dated 13.8.2008 brings out that the complainant had been duly served and the same is corroborated from Para No.2 of the order as well as by the statement made at bar by the opposing counsel Sh. Raman Lal Gupta, Advocate stating that he had personally served the Appellant in the Civil Court. Thus, it cannot lie in the mouth of the Appellant to state that he was not served and given due opportunity to defend himself. It is also seen that he has appealed against the order dated 13.8.2008 vide the present appeal after much beyond the period of limitation. There is no application for condonation of delay accompanying the appeal. Therefore, in view of our earlier observations with regard to the service having been affected on the appellant and in view of the fact that this appeal is barred by limitation qua the order dated 13.8.2008, we find no merit in this appeal qua order dated 13.8.2008.

11.                   Now coming to the contention of the appellant with regard to his conviction, he has failed to make out any case for the non execution of the decree. He has not placed any evidence before us to prove his contention that he has no role to play in the running of the institution. Furthermore, it is relevant to mention that qua the execution application, we cannot go behind the decree. Since, the Appellant had no stay order against the order dated 13.8.208 in his favour and as is apparent from the evidence on record, he had deliberately not attended the execution proceedings, we find no illegality in the order of conviction issued vide order dated 25.3.2009.

12.                   From the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant Sh. Ajay Rana and the same is dismissed and the impugned orders dated 18.3.2008 and 25.3.2009 are upheld being just, fair and legal.

13.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

8^th February 2010.