BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 994/2021 & 995/2021
1. | Sri T.H. Manjunath, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late T.D. Hulluraiah, R/o Near Old Tiles Factory, Kothi Thopu, Tumkur, Tumkur District. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | Smt. Annapurnamma, W/o Late T.D. Hulluraiah, Aged about 65 years, R/o Near Old Tiles Factory, Kothi Thopu, Tumkur, Tumkur District. | |
3. | Sri T.H. Srinivasa, S/o Late T.D. Hulluraiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o Near Old Tiles Factory, Kothi Thopu, Tumkur, Tumkur District. | |
4. | Sri N.K. Siddaraju, S/o Kalmane Kadaiah, Aged about 50 years, Nadulvala Palya, Chikkonahalli Post, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur Dist. (By Sri N. Suresh) Appellants are same in both the appeals. | |
V/s
APPEAL NO.994/2021
Sri H.R. Sowbhagya, W/o T.G. Venugopal, Aged about 61 years, R/o No.54, Prabhu Krupa, 1st Floor, Kuvempunagar, Tumkur. (By Sri Prakash.M.Patil) | ..…Respondent/s |
APPEAL NO.994/2021
Sri T.G. Venugopal, S/o Late T.K. Govindaraju, Aged about 66 years, R/o No.54, Prabhu Krupa, 1st Floor, Kuvempunagar, Tumkur. (By Sri Prakash.M.Patil) | ..…Respondent/s |
COMMON ORDER
BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellants/JDRs have preferred both these appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.10.11.2021 passed in EP.Nos.72/2018 & 71/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur. To avoid repetition of work, both these appeals are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
The decree holders have obtained an order in complaints against the JDR Nos.1 to 4 and the District Commission passed an order as under;
“The complaint is allowed in part with costs directing Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- jointly and severally with costs of Rs.1,000/- each together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- each and punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- each within eight weeks, failing which, they shall pay interest at 10% p.a. from the date on which the amounts become payable to the complainant. It is ordered that out of the punitive damages awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each) shall be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. The complaint against Opposite Party No.5 stands dismissed but without costs.”
The complainant/decree holder has filed this Execution Petition for non-compliance of the order by the JDRs paying a sum of Rs.13,23,048/- which includes interest, compensation etc. After put in appearance by JDR Nos. 1 to 4, they have filed detailed objections challenging the maintainability of this Execution Petition and on hearing both the parties, this Commission vide order dt.22.01.2021 held that objections raised by the JDRs are not tenable, hence, rejected. Thereafter, this Commission has took cognizance of offence and again issued fresh summons to JDRs. In pursuance of summons JDRs appeared through their learned counsel and they are released on bail. Thereafter, plea of JDRs/accused Nos. 1 to 4 recorded, but, they pleaded not guilty. To substantiate the plea, the complainant/DHR filed his affidavit evidence and he was objected to cross-examination. After recoding Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the JDR No.1 entered the witness box as DW-1. After trial, the District Commission passed conviction order against the JDRs.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/JDRs are in appeal. Heard the arguments.
4. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission, the DHRs have filed an Execution Application for non-compliance of the order by the JDR/s in CC.No.100/2008 and 101/2008. The District Commission after recording the sworn statement, the DHRs by taking cognizance u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. recorded plea and JDR/s pleaded not guilty subsequently examined the DHR/s 313 statement recorded and after trial, the District Commission passed the Order of conviction against the JDRs. Aggrieved by the said Order of conviction, the JDRs are in appeals and contended that the Order passed by the District Commission is nullify in the eye of law because the order allowed against the Partnership Firm namely M/s Manjunatha Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd., registered under Societies Act and not against MFI Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd., registered under Companies Act. The investment made by the DHR/s are with MFI Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd., registered under Companies Act and both laws are different. Moreover, the DHR/s are obtained the order of the District Commission by producing concocted Xerox bond of MFI Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd., and prays to stay further proceedings in Execution Application and set aside the order of conviction passed by the District Commission.
5. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, the District Commission has convicted the JDRs u/s 255 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable u/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 now it is Sec.72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as follows;
Sec.72 : Penalty for non-compliance of order
(1) Whoever fails to comply with any order made by the district Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both;
(2) ………………….
(3) …………………
In the present case also, it is an allegation of the respondents that they have deposited the amount with the appellants and the appellants have not repaid the amount of the respondents/complainants with interest as assured by them. The application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the DHRs for non-compliance of the order of the District Commission and passed an order of conviction because the District Commission had no option other than to convict the JDRs. As per Sec.72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we cannot set aside the order of conviction passed by the District Commission because Sec.72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a penalty clause, hence, the only remedy to the JDRs are to comply the order passed by the District Commission. Moreover, the JDRs have not challenged the Order in CC.Nos. 100/2008 and 101/2008 dt.17.11.2008, hence, it attains finality and JDRs have admitted all the allegations of the DHRs in the complaints. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission u/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 now it is Sec.72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal Nos. 994/2021 and 995/2021 are dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the DHRs/complainants.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
