BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.NO.986 OF 2013 AGAINST E.A.No.03 OF 2010 IN C.C.NO.158 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM RANGAREDDY
Between:
- Sri K.Venkata Ratnam S/o late Rangavadhanulu
R/o D-17, Vengalarao Nagar, Hyderabad. - Sri K.Ramesh Kumar S/o late K.Narasaiah
R/o H.No.1-1-750/8, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad-080
Appellants/Petitioners/opposite parties
A N D
S.V.Nageswara Rao S/o Sri Seshagiri Rao
Aged about 48 years, R/o Flat No.2B
Ashtalakshmi Heavens, Vasavi Colony
R.K.Puram, Hyderabad-35
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s M.Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondent G.Prabhakara Rao
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties are the appellants. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking for refund of the advance sale consideration amount of 6,00,116/- along with compensation and costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to pay6,00,116/- with interest @ 12% p.a. together with compensation of 40,000/- and costs of 4,000/-. When the opposite parties failed to comply the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed E.A.No.3 of 2010. The opposite parties aggrieved by the order of the District filed appeal F.A.No.128 of 2010 before this Commission and this Commission partly allowed the appeal modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the compensation of 40,000/- while confirming the rest of the order. The complainant after disposal of the appeal filed calculation memo before the District Forum wherein he submitted that he had received an amount of 3,49,144/- and 25,000/-by way of cheques.
2. The opposite parties filed counter contending that the complainant suppressed the fact of filing the revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission by the opposite parties. The complainant had withdrawn the amounts deposited by the opposite parties together with interest and the opposite parties submitted that the said amount shall be deducted from the original claim. The opposite parties also filed objections on the calculation memo filed by the complainant stating that the total amount due by them was 4,86,064.64.
3. The District Forum after considering contentions of the both parties passed the order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,94,700/- on or before 20.09.2013. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties filed the appeal contending that the District Forum failed to follow section 200 of Cr.P.C. to issue summons and as such the proceedings of the forum u/s 27 of the C.P. Act is not in conformity of the said Act.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the procedure prescribed u/27 of the Consumer Protection Act with respect to summary criminal trial and Section 200 Cr.P.C., was not adhered to in EA No. 3 of 2010 in CC No. 158 of 2006.
5. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007 AIR SCW 6679) has observed as under:-
“49 Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American declaration of Independence 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 all speak with one voice – liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarity, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
50. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.
51. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilized society. Sometimes in the target interest of the Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued.
6. We observe from the above that the summary procedure of Section 200 Cr.PC. as contemplated under the Act and being followed by this Commission in several cases has not been followed by the Dist. Forum. A simple sworn statement of the complainant has to be taken with respect to non-compliance of the order and then an opportunity to be given to the JDr/Opposite party for their reply with respect to compliance/non- compliance and only then next step could be ordered according to law. Prima facie, we observe from the record that this procedure has not been followed, and therefore we set-aside the order of the Dist. Forum and remand this matter back to Dist. Forum and the both sides shall appear before the Dist. Forum on 014.07.2014 without insisting on fresh notice and the Dist. Forum shall decide the E.A. within two months from date of appearance i.e., from 14.9.2014. Both side counsels are directed to inform their parties to appear before the Dist. Forum on 14.9.2013 as no fresh notice will be issued again for their appearance on that day.
7. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.09.2013 of the District Forum. The District Forum shall follow the procedure contemplated u/s 200 Cr.P.C. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 14.07.2014. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.18.06.2014
కె.ఎం.కె.*
