(Delivered on 19/01/2019)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.      These six  appeals  are being disposed of by this Common order as common questions of law and facts are involved in them. These appeals  are filed by the common original  opposite party (in short O.P.) No. 1 against  framing of charge  on 17/05/2018  against the original opposite party  No. 1 by  the District Consumer Forum, Wardha in six execution  applications  bearing Nos. EA/18/2016, EA/12/2015, EA/16/2015, EA/11/2016, EA/12/2016 and EA/13/2016, for the  offence punishable  under section 27(1) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  These appeals are  filed under section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The facts in brief giving rise to the present  six appeals  are  as under.

2.      The original  six complainants who are the respective  respondent  No. 1 in these six appeals  had filed  six consumer complaints bearing  No. 52/2008, 53/2008,46/2008, 41/2008, 39/2008,  & 51/2008 against the appellants  herein /original O.P.No. 1 and respondent  Nos. 2,3&4 herein /original  O.P.Nos. 2,3&4, before  the District Consumer Forum, Wardha. The said complaints  were allowed by the said Forum as per identical orders passed  in each of the said  complaints on 30/06/2009. The District Consumer Forum, Wardha directed the original O.P. No. 1/ appellant  in the said six complaints  under six identical final orders as under.

          “The O.P.No. 1/ appellant  to repair the vehicle of the  complainant/ respondent No. 1 herein  described  in the said orders  through dealer  and to  bring those vehicle  in roadworthy condition, without  claiming  any expenses or labour charges  from the said original complainant/respondent No. 1 herein in these appeals and if it is not possible  then the O.P.No. 1/appellant  shall take  possession of the said vehicles  as per  order and then it shall refund  the price of the said vehicles, tax and insurance premium to the respective  respondent No. 1/ original complainant and  the O.P.No. 1/ appellant  shall pay  litigation cost of Rs. 500/- to the  original  complainant  /respondent No. 1 herein in each of these complaints and compliance  of the aforesaid directions be  made within 30 days from the date of receipt  of copy of that order by it.  The other directions were given to the rest of the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein but those directions  are not  relevant by deciding these appeals.

3.      The original complainant /respondent No. 1 in these appeals  thereafter  filed aforesaid six  execution  applications  bearing Nos. EA/18/2016, EA/12/2015, EA/16/2015, EA/11/2016, EA/12/2016 and EA/13/2016 before the District Consumer Forum, Wardha against the  original  O.P. No. 1/ appellant  and original  O.P. Nos. 2,3&4/respodnent Nos. 2 to 4 herein,  under section 27 of the Consumer Protection  Act on the ground that  all of them  did not comply with the directions given to them  by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha in the aforesaid  six consumer complaints.

4.      The original O.P.No. 1/appellant  appeared  before the District Consumer Forum, Wardha in these six execution applications  and filed reply in each of the said execution application. The  submission made by the O.P. No. 1/ appellant  in those execution  applications  in brief is that  the said  execution applications  are barred by limitation  as they are not  filed within  the period of three  years from the date of the decision  in original  consumer complaints. Moreover,  the  original  O.P. No. 1/ appellant  vide  notice dated  10/08/2009 had requested  the original complainant /respondent No. 1 herein  to bring  their respective vehicle  to the authorized  dealer for repairing  and O.P. No. 1/appellant  is ready to get repaired  their vehicles. But they did not  bring  those vehicles for  repairing  as per said notice served to them.  Thus it was  the defence  raised  in the application  and reply filed by the original O.P. No. 1/ appellant  that  the original  complainants /respondent No. 1  in these appeals  are not  interested  in getting  repaired  their  vehicle  but they are  interested  in getting  new vehicle  from the original  O.P. No. 1/ appellant  and hence,  the original O.P. No. 1/ appellant  cannot be held responsible  for  non-compliance of orders  passed in  original  complaints. It was therefore, requested by the  original  O.P.No. 1/appellant  that  it be discharged  from the liability.

5.      The learned  District Consumer Forum, Wardha  however,  framed the charge  against the  original  O.P. No. 1/appellant  for the offence  punishable  under section  27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said charge  was explained by the said Forum  to the original O.P.No. 1/appellant, their plea    was also recorded.  The original O.P.No. 1/appellant pleaded not guilty. Thus  feeling  aggrieved  by the  framing  of the aforesaid  charge  for  offence  punishable  under section 27 (1) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in six complaints /six execution  applications, these six appeals  are filed by the original  O.P.No. 1/ appellant.

6.      We have heard Advocate Mrs. S.J. Banerjee   appearing for the appellant  in  all these appeals.  We have also heard Advocate Mrs. S.K. Pounikar  appearing  for the respondent No. 1 in all these appeals.  We also heard Advocate Mr. A.U. Kullarwar  appearing for the  respondent  No. 2 and Advocate Mr.  Sachin  Jaiswal  appearing for the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3 is already deleted from  all these appeals.  We have also perused the record of these six appeals.

7.      The learned advocate of the appellant firstly  submitted that  the aforesaid six  execution applications/complaints   for offence punishable  under section 27 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ought to have been filed  within  a period of three years from the date of  original order passed in original  complaint  on 30/06/2009 but the said  execution  applications were  not filed  within  three years  from that date as per  period of limitation    provided under section  468 of Criminal  Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).  Thus, according to her, on this sole ground  of  limitation, the District Consumer Forum, Wardha ought to have  dismissed  aforesaid six   execution  applications,  but it failed to  do so.

8.      On the other hand,  the learned advocate of the respondent No. 1/ original complainants  submitted that  the  provisions of section 468 of Cr.P.C.  are not attracted  in the present execution  applications. She also submitted  that the  cause of action  for   filing  execution applications  is continuing  and hence it cannot be said that the  execution  applications  are  barred by limitation. The  learned advocate of the  respondent  Nos. 2 & 4 also adopted  the aforesaid submission  of the learned advocate of the appellant during  their arguments.

9.      However, in this  context we find that  the Hon’ble National Commission  in the case of  Prem Chandra Varshney Vs Murarilal Sharma and others, decided  on 12/09/20107 and  reported  in IV(2007) CPJ 229 (NC) has very specifically held that  the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide for any limitation  period  for filing  execution  application.  Moreover, the section 27(2) of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 specifically provides  that   notwithstanding  anything  contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, the District  Forum or the State  Commission or the National  Commission, as the case may be , shall have the power  of a Judicial Magistrate  of the first class  for trial of offences under  the said Act. and  on such  conferment of powers,  the District Forum or  State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers  are so conferred, shall be deemed to  be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class  for the purpose  of the  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10.    Thus, as per said clause, we find  that provisions  of section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code  relating to the  period of limitation  are not applicable  to the execution  applications filed  under section 27 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are of the considered  view  that  the cause of action for filing application  for the offence  punishable  under section  27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be  said to be continuing.  Thus, there is no substance in the  first submission  of the learned advocate of the appellant that  the execution  applications  filed by the  original complainant / respondent No. 1 in these appeals  are barred by limitation.

11.    Second submission made by the learned advocate of the appellant  is that  the District Consumer Forum ought to given  opportunity  to appellant   for hearing before  framing  of  charge  against the appellant  and ought to have  passed  speaking order on the application made  by the appellant  for discharging  from liability.  Thus, according  to her  as no such  opportunity  of hearing  was given and as application  filed  for discharge   was not  heard & decided by District Forum,  the charge  frame  against  the O.P. No. 1/ appellant  deserves to be set  aside.   The learned advocate of the original  complainant /respondent No. 1 on the  other hand submitted that  framing of charge  itself   gives an  inference  that  the Forum below  did not find sufficient material at the stage of  framing  charges to dismiss the execution application. The learned advocate of the respondent Nos. 2 & 4 also supported the  submission  of learned advocate of the appellant during their  argument.

12.    We find that  the appellant in those applications  made  for discharge has   raised defence  that  though  notice was served  to the original  complainants /respondent No. 1 in these six appeals  to bring  their  vehicles  for repairing to the authorized dealer of the appellant. But they did not bring  the same and  hence,  there is no question  of  drawing  inference  that the original  O.P. No. 1/appellant  fail to comply with final order passed in original complaints.  We find that  the defence raised  by the O.P. No. 1/appellant  in reply and  application  filed  before the Forum in  execution application  can be  properly  considered  at the time of final hearing of the execution applications particularly  after opportunity of  adducing  evidence  is given to both  parties.

13.    It is seen  from the record of  these six  appeals that  the original complainants / respondent No. 1 herein had given reply to the notice  of the appellant  that  their vehicles  are in possession  of the financer and hence, they can not produce  those vehicles  for repairing.  It is not specific case of the  O.P.No. 1/appellant  that  the said vehicles  are still in possession the respective complainants /respondent No. 1 herein.  However , we find that  it will be decided  after  evidence  in those  execution  applications  as to whether  the original  complainants /respondent No. 1 herein  are in possession  of the  vehicles  in question and that  they  deliberately did not produce  the same for  repairing,  as per  notice  given to them by original  O.P. No. 1/ appellant.

14.    We thus find that  the contentions raised by the O.P.  No. 1/appellant  that  they were  ready  and willing  to comply  the aforesaid  directions  given  to the original complainant  but  original complainants /respondent  No.1 are responsible  for  not getting  complied with the said  direction,  can be heard and effectively  decided  after opportunity  of adducing evidence  is given  to both the parties in those  execution applications by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha.

15.    We also find that  there is primafacie evidence  for framing  of charge  against the  O.P. No. 1/appellant  for offence  punishable under  section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, it cannot be  said that  the District Consumer Forum, Wardha committed  error  in  framing  the said charge  against  the  original O.P. No. 1/appellant  for  the  said offence. We find no merit in these  six appeals and therefore, these appeals  deserve to be  dismissed.

ORDER

i.        All these six  appeals bearing Nos. A/18/419, A/18/420, A/18/421, A/18/422, A/18/423 & A/18/424  are hereby dismissed.

ii.       No order as to cost in these six  appeals.

iii.      Copy of order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.