Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/266/2017

K.C.Meena Deputy Housing Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surendar Singh Bhalla s/o Diwan Chand - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Tomer

27 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 266/2017

 

K.C.Meena, Dy.Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, CAD Circle Kota presently posted on the post of Chief Engineer (HQ) Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Surender Singh Bhalla s/o Diwanchand r/o 7-B-16 Mahavir Nagar (III) Kota, Rajasthan

 

 

Date of Order 22.3.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. P.S.Tomar counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Kota dated 1.3.2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and sentenced for one month simple imprisonment and Rs.2000/- fine.

 

Initially the contention of the appellant was that he has acted in a fair manner and in compliance of the order the complainant has allotted house but remaining amount and monthly instalments were not paid by the consumer. Hence, no disobedience was committed by him. He acted to ensure the full and final compliance of the order. In para no.2 of the appeal after justifying the act of the appellant an unconditional apology was also accorded.

 

Today, the complainant has submitted an application that matter has been compromised between the parties and the impugned order has been complied with. He has received the possession letter on 15.3.2017 and remaining amount has also been paid to him. In the light of above the appellant has also submitted a written unconditional apology before the Forum

 

3

 

 

and the only contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the lenient view should have been taken.

 

The counsel for the complainant has also submitted that as compliance has been made, no grievance now persist to him.

 

In the light of above the counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on II (2004) CPJ 407 Dinesh Sharma Vs. Puran Chand where during pendency order was complied hence, sentence was set aside and substituted by additional fine. Further reliance has been placed on judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1610/2011 Tushar Dhananjay Vs. Abhay Kumar Singh where also liberal view has been taken in favour of the appellant. Further reliance has been placed on 1992 (1) Consumer Protection Reporter 323 C.R.Kataria Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal District Forum where also on tendering unconditional apology sentence was set aside. Further reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by Maharashtra State Commission in First Appeal No. 338/2011 Sunil Jabarchand Modi Vs. Subodh Madhav Gadre.

 

4

 

 

On the strength of the above preposition the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of sentence and conviction be set aside.

 

The facts are not in dispute that in 1994 the original complaint was submitted before the District Forum which was decided in favour of the complainant on 20.8.1996. Appeal was decided on 1.11.2004. Revision petition before the National Commission was dismissed on 6.5.2005 inspite of this the order has not been complied and as the application submitted by the complainant today clearly speaks that possession letter of the property was issued only on 15.3.2017 only after the order of sentence u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act but looking at the facts that the ultimate purpose of section 27 is to seek compliance of the order and not to punish the service provider. These provisions are by way of execution and when order has been executed though reluctantly and even unconditional apology has been tendered with reluctance but in the facts and circumstances it will be appropriate to modify the order of the Forum below in the manner that order of sentence of one month simple imprisonment is set aside and fine of Rs.2000/-

 

5

 

is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

 

On the above terms, this appeal stands disposed of.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm