THYAGARAJAN ENTERPRISES vs PULASTYA ENGINEERING GROUNDS

THIS petition is filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

AN ex parte award has been passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent in O.P. 229/95 on 1.12.95 directing the Opposite Party therein (the respondent herein) to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 4,05,000/ within two months from the date of the order. Now this petition under Section 27 has been filed on the ground that the respondent failed or omitted to pay the award amount as directed by this Com mission and, therefore, he is liable to be imposed penalty under the said section. After notice was issued to the Opposite Party he filed a counter. In the long counter filed by him he raised contentions, which ought to have been raised in the written version against the averments in the complaint. There he has also referred to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court, National Commission and some of the State Commissions. He would contend that the award is a nullity because the complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, there is no liability for the respondent to pay the award amount. Hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is next contended that the respondent is outside the jurisdiction of this Commission namely in Guntur and hence he is not liable to be arrested.

Apparently the respondent failed or omitted to comply with the order of award passed by this Commission. What all the objections raised in the counter should have been raised by the respondent during the proceedings in the Opp Party by filing a written version and not now. It is however argued that even at this stage it can be contended that the award passed is a nullity. In this connection it is argued that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning given in the Consumer Protection Act because as per the complaint the complainant purchased machinery from the respondent for commercial purpose. Such a contention cannot be raised at this stage. Even otherwise on perusal of the complaint and the award passed we find there is absolutely no merit in this contention. As regards the next contention that since the respondent is now in Guntur no penalty of imprisonment can be passed against him, there is absolutely no substance in it. Thus we find no tenable points raised in the counter.

IN the result, we order imprisonment of the respondent for 6 months. Issue non-bailable warrant. Imprisonment ordered.