RAJINDER SINGH vs SANJEEV KUMAR

RAJINDER Singh -appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 27 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) against the order dated 28.1.2004 passed by the District Forum, Ambala, whereby he has been sentenced to imprisonment for six months for non -compliance of the order dated 31.12.1998.

SANJIV Kumar -complainant had filed Complaint Case No. 746 of 1997 against the Sherry Bus Service, Ambala which was accepted on 31.12.1998, whereby the following directions have been given against the appellant -opposite party: (i) To refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 9,200 received as hiring charges with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 22.11.1997 till its payment. (ii) To pay Rs. 21,800 spent by the complainant as referred to above in the complaint. (iii) To pay Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation instead of Rs. 1,00,000 claimed by him for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant. (iv) To pay Rs. 1,000 by way of costs of proceedings. As the appellant had not paid any amount in terms of the directions of the District Forum in order dated 31.12.1998, the respondent -complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum which accepted on 28.1.2004, whereby the above stated sentence order was passed against the appellant. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed.

We have heard Rajinder Singh - appellant in person. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

CHALLENGE to the order dated 28.1.2004 passed by District Forum, Ambala has been made on grounds, inter alia, that the appellant is neither owner of the bus nor partner of Sherry Bus Service and for that reason the application was not maintainable against him; that the provisions fo Section 27 of the Amended Act, 1986 had come into force on 15.3.2003 and for that reason they are not applicable to the pending proceedings before the District Forum; that the execution could be filed under Section 25 of the Act, 1986 only in which the action available to the complainant was to attach his property; that no notice or charge has been framed against him; that the impugned order is not a speaking order and that the objections filed by him have not been decided. These submissons have been refuted from the side of the respondent.

COMING to the submissions made, needless to say that the District Forum, Ambala was bound by its first order dated 22.9.1997, which was confirmed in First Appeal No. 570 of 1997. Being the Executing Court, it was not open for the District Forum to decide the question whether the appellant was a partner of Sherry Bus Service or not because this question stood already decided in the complaint filed by the opposite party and upheld in the appeal. Thus, there is no merit in the stand taken from the side of the apppellant in this regard. Coming to the applicability of the amended provisions to the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent -complainant, the question has been settled by the Honble National Commission in case Birla VXL Ltd. v. National Insurance Company, III (2003) CPJ 111 (NC), wherein it was held that though the complaint was filed prior to 15.3.2003 the procedure for enforcement of the order will have to be as per amended provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Act, 1986. The legal position being so, the objection taken from the side of the appellant has no force. It is well settled that Section 27 of the Act confers additional powers on the Forum to execute its order in addition to the remedy available under Section 25 of the Act and for that reason Section 25 has to be read in conjunction with Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the stand taken from the side of the appellant carry no conviction. Coming to the last submission made, it appears from the impunged order itself that as many as 75 opportunities have been given to the appellant to comply with the direction. When the appellant has not appeared up to 3.55 p.m. on 28.1.2004 the impugned order was passed. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that no opportunity of compliance to the imugned order was given to the appellant and for that reason the grievance made in this regard, cannot be entertained. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.