PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.10.2010, 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 K.S.Thakur, proprietor of M/s T.K. Car Bazar (OP No.1), to undergo imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only), for non-compliance with the order dated 23.10.2009. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant(now respondent NO.1)filed a Consumer Complaint No.1326 of 2009 against the Opposite Parties, stating therein, that he had purchased one second hand car bearing Registration No.CH-03-E-8764 , model 2001, from OP No.1(now appellant) for a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, whereas, OP No2 (now respondent NO.2) was projected to be the registered owner of the said car. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1.00 lacs including 2% commission to OP No.1 on 4.12.2008 and took possession of the vehicle, while the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid to them on delivery of the NOC of the said vehicle, within two weeks. The OPs did not supply the NOC despite many requests. A legal notice was also served, but the OPs did not send any reply. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Act. 3. The complaint was allowed, vide order dated 23.9.2009, in the following manner ; “In view of the above discussion, we accept this complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to provide the NOC with all other papers/forms/affidavit for its transfer to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant would also be entitled to compensation for harassment amounting to Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.5000/- which shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If the NOC and other documents and compensation amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the OPs would take the vehicle back and refund the whole amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of deposit i.e. 4.12.2008, till its payment to the complainant, alongwith the compensation and litigation costs, failing which, they would be liable to pay the entire amount due with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 16.9.2009 till its payment to the complainant.” 4. Against the said order dated 23.102009, OP NO.1(now appellant) filed appeal bearing NO.681 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.7.2010. As per that order, the complainant received Rs.25,000/-, which amount was deposited by OP No.1, at the time of filing appeal. The OPs did not comply with the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Forum and, thus, an execution application under Section 27 of the Act, was filed, by the complainant, to punish them, for not complying with the aforesaid order. 5. Show cause notice, was issued to the OPs. OP No.1(now appellant) appeared through his Counsel Sh.Onkar Singh,Advocate. At the request of the Counsel, the proceedings were adjourned to 15.9.2010 for making payment. On that date, the payment was not made. Thereafter, the proceedings were adjourned from time to time, but the order dated 23.10.2009 was not fully complied with. 6. Ultimately, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the order dated 23.10.2009 had been violated and deliberately disobeyed by OP No.1(now appellant) and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/OP NO.1. 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 order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Forum, has been fully complied with by the appellant. He further submitted that after compliance of the order, now no dispute survives, between the parties. He further submitted that in this view of the matter, the appeal be accepted. 10. The Counsel for respondent NO.1/Complainant, as also the complainant, in person, submitted that the order dated 23.9.2010 had been fully complied with by the appellant, and now no dispute existed between the parties. He also prayed for acceptance of appeal. 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 OPs or not? It may be stated here, that, originally the complaint was accepted by the District Forum, and vide its order dated 23.10.2009, the OPs were directed to pay the amount mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved, OP NO.1 filed an appeal, before the State Commission, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 13.7.2010. The OPs, did not comply with the order of the District Forum, despite offering them sufficient opportunity. When the execution application was filed, a show cause notice, was issued to the OPs. The Counsel for the OPs sought adjournments to make payment , but they failed to comply with the order. The summary procedure was only required to be adopted, by the District Forum, while passing the order, in the execution application, for awarding sentence, to the OPs. In the instant case, due compliance of the principles of natural justice, was made. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the procedure adopted by the District Forum, in awarding sentence was, in any way, illegal. 13. The amount , in full and final settlement of the claim, has admittedly been paid by OP No.1/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 qua OP NO.1/appellant. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal, is accepted with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 1.10.2010, is set aside, qua the appellant/Opposite Party No.1. Non-Bailable Warrants, if already issued against him, 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 | , | |
