MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

          Originally revision petition against the order under Section 27 dated 14.7.2010 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed. Since only an appeal against such an order, under Section 27-A was maintainable, vide separate order, the revision petition was treated as an appeal.

2.       The Maa Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Limited and Sh.Vikram, Secretary of The Maa Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Limited have filed this appeal, against the order dated 14.7.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in Criminal Complaint No. 36 of 2010 whereby the non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioners for their arrest and detention in jail to undergo imprisonment awarded to them, with the following observation :-

          “As per the order dated 16.7.2007, the OP was directed to refund the complainant his share of amount of Rs.56,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.9.2000 till its actual realization alongwith costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2100/-. Pursuant to the issuance of certificate to the District Collector, UT, Chandigarh, under Section 25(3) of the CP Act, the complainant had received cheque of Rs.58,600/- on 2.4.2009 and cheque of Rs.43,629/- on 22.1.2010 on interest. When the complainant presented cheque of Rs.43,629/- to the bank for its encashment, the same was dishonoured on 3.2.2010 on account of ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, t he complainant could not get the interest amount and Ops are, therefore, liable to pay the same. In this manner, a sum of Rs.43,629/- is still due to be paid to the complainant by the Ops which they have not paid so far even inspite of sufficient opportunity afforded to t hem and even after lapse of period of three years. We are of the opinion that it a fit case in which the provision of Section 27 of the CPA, 1986 should be enforced. We, therefore, sentence President and Sh.Vikram, Secretary of The Maa Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Limited, to imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each would suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months.

          Non-bailable warrants be issued against President and Sh.Vikram, Secretary of The Maa Shakti Cooperative Group Housing Limited for 20.8.2010 for their arrest and detention in jail to undergo imprisonment awarded to them.”

3.          Aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2010 passed by the learned District Forum, the OPs/appellants filed the instant appeal.

4.       We have heard Sh.Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the OPs/appellants have perused the record, carefully.

5.       The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the summons in the execution filed by the respondent under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had never been received by the appellants and, as such, they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard by the learned District Forum before passing the impugned order dated 14.7.2010. It was further submitted that the appellants have made the payment of principal amount during the pendency of the application under Section 25 of the Act. However, they could not make the payment of interest amount due to the paucity of funds but their intention was never malafide. It was further submitted that had their intention been mala-fide, they would not have paid the principal amount also. It was further submitted that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, as the payment of interest amount along with future interest to the tune of Rs.56,500/- had been paid to the respondent by way of demand draft No.392303 dated 16.7.2010 drawn on Federal Bank Ltd. Hence, nothing is due against the appellants. He further submitted that the respondent has sworn an affidavit to the effect that nothing was due to him against the appellants on any account and he had received the amount as per the orders of the learned District Forum.  He further submitted that the order be set aside. 

6.       After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in our opinion, the appeal is liable to be accepted. It is evident from the record that the entire payment of the decretal amount has been made to the complainant/respondent and as such, nothing remains due against the appellants. Moreover, the matter has already been settled amicably between the parties. In this regard, the affidavit of the complainant has also been placed on the file. The object of the Act is to ensure that the orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission are complied with, in letter and spirit. As stated above, the order has been fully complied with. Since the matter has already been settled between the parties amicably, we are of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by sending the appellants to jail. The impugned order is, thus, liable to be set aside.

7.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with no order, as to costs. The impugned order is set aside.

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

Pronounced.                                                                        

26^th April, 2011.