B.B. SHARMA vs MRS. SUSHMA BHARTI

IN all 31 revision petitions, filed by Shri B.B. Sharma, common question of law and fact is involved and the petitioner in all the cases is the same. Hence all the revision petitions mentioned above are being disposed of by this single order.

THE facts of the cases in brief are that the petitioner was the director of M/s. Hoftland Securities Ltd. and the respondents had made various deposits with the company. However, the petitioner failed to refund the principal amount deposited by the respondents along with interest. Hence the respondents filed separate complaints before the District Forum and the District Forum vide separate orders directed the petitioner to make the payment of the principal amount, as well as interest besides costs and compensation for mental tension. THE petitioner, however, did not comply with the order of the District Forum. Hence the respondents moved application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for initiating proceedings against the petitioner. Still the petitioner did not comply with the orders of the District Forum and failed to refund the money hence the District Forum after issue of notice to the petitioner in all the cases and after considering his reply sentenced the petitioner Shri B.B. Sharma to one year of imprisonment in each case under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is against the orders passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the present revision petitions have been filed by Shri B.B. Sharma. The revision petitions have been pressed mainly on three grounds : that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself before he was sentenced to imprisonment. It is also contended that petitioner, who is in jail was not provided any legal aid. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order the learned District Forum did not enquire whether the petitioner had means to comply with the order of the learned District Forum and had means to repay the amount to the respondents.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in all the cases and the Counsel for the respondents in some of the cases and the respondents in person in other cases and have also considered the records of the District Forum carefully. As regards the first contention of the petitioner is concerned that he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself, we have found from the perusal of the impugned order that the petitioner was given notices of the applications under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the petitioner filed its reply before the District Forum which was considered before passing the impugned order hence this contention is without any force. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in all the cases. The next contention raised by the petitioner is regarding legal aid. It is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner himself made a statement before the District Forum on 14.2.2002 that he did not need any legal aid as he had engaged a Counsel of his own choice. In view of the statement, made before the District Forum, it cannot be said that he was not provided legal aid as he refused to accept the same and engaged his own Counsel. A person cannot be compelled to take legal aid against his wishes specially if he is in a position to engage a Counsel of his own. Hence we do not find any force in this contention also.

IT has further been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum did not investigate about the financial position of the petitioner to find out if he has the means to pay to the respondents, the deposited amount and that he has refused to comply the order of the District Forum with mala fide intention. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in case Sanjeev Moses Davidson v. Central Jail, Tihar, CR Writ No. 398/2003, decided on 30.9.2003. On this issue, it is relevant to note that the petitioner Shri B.B. Sharma has sent a letter dated 15.12.2002 to all the respondents from Tihar Jail by which he has assured the depositors that he will refund the amount within six months to two years provided they agreed to his refund programme. From the perusal of this letter, it is apparent that the petitioner has the means to repay the amount but he is intentionally avoiding discharge of his liability. In view of the above, the contention raised by the petitioner in this petition have no legs to stand and the same are rejected. It is also relevant to note that the Revision Petitions are time barred as they have been filed after the prescribed period as the impugned orders were passed in 2002 and the petitions have been filed in August, 2003. It is also relevant to note that revision petitions under Section 17(1)(b) are filed on limited questions whether the District Forum has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the present petitions, there is nothing to show that the learned District Forum has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested. The District Forum has powers to pass orders under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act when the order of the District Forum is not complied with. For the reasons given above, all the revision petitions are dismissed, as we have not found any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned District Forum. All the above mentioned Revision Petitions are disposed of in above terms. R.Ps. dismissed.