JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.1.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only ),vide which Sh.Rajiv Sahney, proprietor of the OP(now appellant) was sentenced to undergo sentence for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo further sentence for a period of six months, for non-compliance of the order dated 20.1.2009, passed against him in Criminal Complaint No.44 of 2009. 2. The complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint No.1005 of 2008 against the OP (now appellant), stating therein that he had done the work of water-proofing treatment on his school building for which a payment of Rs.26,080/- was made to it, vide invoice No.102 dated 31.5.2007. The OP had given five years guarantee for the said water-proofing treatment, but to the contrary, the water was found leaking immediately after the execution of the work. The proprietor of the OP was called and shown the defects, who promised to rectify the same, at the earliest, but nothing was done, though he was also intimated regarding the defects through letters and by making personal visits. 3. Vide order dated 20.1.2009, the complaint was allowed in the following manner ; “In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant must succeed partly, as there is no valid proof about the damages caused due to the above said deficient water proofing by the OP. Therefore, the damage assessed by the complainant amounting to Rs.46,800/- cannot be given. However, the OP is directed to rectify the defect in water proofing treatment of the roof of the School to the satisfaction of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the OP is not able to rectify the defect in water proofing treatment within the aforesaid period, he is directed to refund Rs.26,080/- alongwith penal interest @ 8% p.a. from the date the same was deposited with it by the complainant i.e. 31.5.2007 till its actual realization. The OP shall also pay Rs.550/- to the complainant towards costs of proceedings.” 4. The OP(appellant) did not comply with the order dated 20.1.2009 and an application under Section-27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act only) was filed by the complainant (now respondent) to punish the proprietor thereof for non-compliance. 5. Show cause notice was issued to the proprietor of the OP, for 15.1.2010, which was duly served upon him, but neither he, nor any authorized representative, on his behalf, put in appearance. 6. The District Forum, thus, came to the conclusion, that non-appearance of the OP, showed that the proprietor thereof was willfully disobeying the order and had nothing to say against passing of the sentence. 7. Accordingly the order, detailed in the opening para of this judgment, was passed by the District Forum and non-bailable warrants of arrest of Mr.R.Sahney, proprietor of the OP(appellant) were ordered to be issued. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. At the time of arguments, the Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the matter has been amicably settled and the amount, as ordered vide order dated 20.1.2009, has already been paid to the respondent. He also submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed, as fine, by the District Forum, in Criminal Complaint No.44 of 2009, has also been paid. He further submitted that the order, dated 20.1.2009 has been fully complied with, by the appellant. 11. The Counsel for the respondent, very fairly acknowledged the correctness of submissions, made by the Counsel for the appellant, referred to above. 12. The main object of the provisions of the Act, is that the orders passed by the District Fora, as also the State Commission, and National Commission, when attain finality, are complied with, in letter and spirit. The object behind the provisions of Section-27 of the Act, is not that if the party amicably settles the matter, and the orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or the National commission are complied with in letter and spirit, though belatedly, service provider/OP, should not be punished to undergo sentence. Since the order passed by the District Forum on 20.1.2009, has been fully complied with, in our considered opinion, the appellant need not be sent to jail for undergoing the substantive sentence, as that will serve no useful purpose. The appeal, thus, deserves to be partly accepted. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The order dated 21.1.2010, rendered by the District Forum, directing the appellant/OP to undergo sentence for a period of one year and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo sentence for a period of six months, is set aside. The order of the District Forum, vide which a fine of Rs.10,000/-, was imposed upon the OP/appellant, is maintained. However, as per the submissions, made by the Counsel for the appellant, and correctness thereof having been duly acknowledged by the Counsel for the respondent, the amount of fine of Rs.10,000/- has also been paid by the OP/appellant. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
