PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.08.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it sentenced Sh. Sohan Marwaha, Director of OP (now appellant), to undergo imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. At the same time, the District Forum, issued Non-bailable Warrants, against Sh. Sohan Marwaha, aforesaid. 2. The complainant (now respondent), filed a Consumer Complaint No. 1469 of 2009, against the OP, alleging that, he got registered with Tesol India on 10.2.2008, for programme foundation plus specialization, and paid full fee of Rs.49,950/-. In the brochure, Tesol India, had assured of 99% job successful rates, after completion of the said course. The complainant attended the classes and completed the course, but no placement of job was done. When the complainant, approached the Director of Tesol India, he flatly refused. The complainant was shocked to know that Tesol India had nothing to do, with the policies of the Global Tesol College, Canada, though at the time of admission, the complainant was told that, it was a part of Tesol Global College, Canada. The complainant sent many emails to Tesol India as well as to other companies, for placement, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 3. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2010 and the following operative order was passed by the District Forum, against Tesol India(OP); “In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed and is hereby allowed. The OP is directed to refund the fee of Rs.49,950/- to the complainant with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency interest in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of institution of complaint and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. If the aforesaid amount is not paid to the complainant within thirty days from the receipt of the copy of the order, the OP shall be liable to pay the sme alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit of the amount of Rs.49,950/- with the OP and on the amount of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. the date of order till actual payment to the complainant.” 4. The OP did not comply with the order dated 15.3.2010. Accordingly, an execution application under Section 27 of the Act, was filed, by the complainant, to punish the appellant/Director of Tesol India (OP), for not complying with the aforesaid order.” 5. Show cause notice, was issued to the OP, at fresh address, for 20.8.2010, but the Director of the OP refused to accept the service. The refusal of the Director of the OP, was declared as due service. The Director of the OP did not appear to contest the execution application. Thereafter, the execution application, was adjourned to 25.8.2010, for making the payment. On 25.08.2010, none appeared, on behalf of the OP, either to make the payment, or to show cause, why its Director should not be tried in a summary manner, and punished for non-compliance of the order dated 15.3.2010. Non-appearance of the Director of the OP was taken as willful disobedience of the orders of the District Forum. The District Forum, also came to the conclusion, that the Director of the OP had nothing to say against the passing of sentence. 6. Accordingly, the District Forum, passed the order referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the entire amount upto-date, as calculated, in the order, impugned, by the District Forum, has been paid by the appellant/OP to the respondent/complainant, vide demand draft dated 19.10.2011 in the sum of Rs.76,450/-. He further submitted that, settlement has been arrived at, between the parties, and now no dispute survives, between them. He further submitted that, though the entire amount has been paid by the appellant, to the respondent/complainant, yet, the order impugned, was not legally sustainable, on the ground, that the Director of the OP was neither duly served, nor the sentence could be passed, in his absence. He further submitted that, in case, the Director of the OP had allegedly refused the service of show cause notice, then his presence was required to be procured, through Non-Bailable Warrants and sentence could be passed, only in his presence. He further submitted that the entire procedure adopted by the District Forum, in awarding sentence, to the Director of the OP, being contrary to the provisions of law, was illegal. It was further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 10. The Counsel for the respondent/complainant, admitted that he has received the amount through demand draft, aforesaid, in full and final settlement of the claim, as the matter, has been amicably settled between the parties. He further submitted that the procedure, in consonance with the relevant provisions of law, was adopted by the District Forum, before awarding sentence to the appellant/Director of the OP. He further submitted that, once the Director of the OP, had refused, to accept the service of show cause notice, then it was not at all necessary, to procure his presence, through Non-Bailable Warrants, and pass sentence, in his presence. It was further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. The question arises, as to whether, the District Forum, adopted the correct procedure, in accordance with law, before passing the order of sentence, against the Director of the OP or not? It may be stated here, that, originally the complaint was accepted by the District Forum, and vide its order dated 15.03.2010, the OP was directed to pay the amount mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved, the OP filed an appeal, before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.5.2011. The OP, did not comply with the order of the District Forum, which was upheld by the State Commission, despite offering him sufficient opportunity. When the execution application was filed, a show cause notice was issued to the Director of the OP, for 20.8.2010, which he refused to accept. In these circumstances, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the refusal, on the part of Director of the OP, could be considered as due service. The District Forum, was also right in coming to the conclusion that, even after the service of show cause notice, upon the Director of the OP, as to why, the order of sentence, should not be passed against him, for willful and intentional disobedience of the order dated 15.3.2010 he did not put in appearance, and, as such, it was a fit case, in which sentence should be awarded to him. 12. The summary procedure was only required to be adopted by the District Forum, while passing the order, in execution application, of awarding sentence, to the Director of the OP. In the instant case, due compliance of the principles of natural justice, was made. Since, the Director of the OP refused to accept the show cause notice, it was not necessary, on the part of the District Forum, to procure his presence through Non-Bailable Warrants, and pass the order of sentence, in his presence only. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that, the procedure adopted by the District Forum, in awarding sentence was illegal. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, thus, does not appear to be correct, and stands rejected. 13. The amount , in full and final settlement of the claim, has admittedly been paid by the OP/appellant to the complainant. 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 entire amount, as calculated by the District Forum, in the impugned order, has already been paid, by the appellant, to the complainant, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose, shall be served, by sending the appellant to jail. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice, would be adequately met, if the impugned order is set aside. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal, is accepted with no order as to costs. The order dated 25.08.2010, impugned, is set aside. Non-Bailable Warrants, if already issued, be recalled back, unexecuted immediately. The District Forum concerned be intimated at once. 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
