BHUPINDER SINGH @ TEK SINGH vs OMEGA AGRO PVT. LTD.

ORIGINAL Complaint No. 28 of 1991 was filed by Bhupinder Singh s/o Tek Singh against Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd. through its Chief Executive and others. The same was finally disposed of by the State Commission vide its order dated 11.6.1998 with direction to the manufacturer-cum-supplier of the insecticides-opposite party No. 1 M/s. Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant along with 15% p.a. interest thereon w.e.f. the date of sale of insecticides till payment. Costs of Rs. 2,000/- were also awarded.

THE opposite party having failed to comply with the aforesaid order, the present application was filed by the complainant, Bhupinder Singh, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, for non-compliance of order dated 11.6.1998. THE opposite party impleaded in the application are Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd. through its Chief Executive. Notice of the Execution Application was issued to the respondent through Sh. Nitin Parikh, N.R.I. Director on 15.3.1999 for 17.5.1999. None appeared on 17.5.1999 as the notice sent to the respondent by registered post had been received back undelivered. Again fresh notice was sent to M/s. Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd. through Nitin Parikh, its Director for 9.7.1999. THE notice sent on 20.5.1999 was received back. THEn, again the fresh notice was sent to the respondent for 30.8.1999. As mentioned earlier, thrice the attempt was made to serve the respondent, but he could not be served. THErefore, Dasti Notice was issued for 20.10.1999, which had returned with the remarks, "THE firm was closed and employees present outside the firm did not accept the notice". Meanwhile, application was filed by the complainant giving two other addresses of Nitin Parikh. Notice was issued to those addresses and as requested by the complainant ''Dasti Notice'' was issued at Mani Majra address also for 22.12.1999. Despite many of these letters on changed addresses and ''Dasti Notice'' also, the respondent could not be served till 22.12.1999; then again fresh notice was issued for 15.2.2000. Notice was sent Dasti also. On February 21, 2000, the Counsel for the complainant stated that he was unable to serve the notice ''Dasti''; hence notice was sent through registered A.D. for 27.4.2000. It was presumed on 27.4.2000 that the notice had been served when neither the notice nor the A.D. was received back, thus, the respondent was proceeded ''Ex-parte'' and the case was adjourned to 19.5.2000. On 19.5.2000, the case was adjourned to 24.5.2000 for consideration on the Execution Application. On May 24, again, the case was adjourned to 13.7.2000, in the presence of the Counsel for the complainant Mr. S.S. Rangi. On 13.7.2000, none was present on behalf of the parties, therefore, the case was further adjourned to 17.7.2000 in the interest of justice. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Counsel for the complainant was present on 17.7.2000, and the case was adjourned to 27.7.2000 in the interest of justice. On 27.7.2000, Mr. S.S. Rangi, Counsel for the complainant stated that he would furnish on next day only the address on which the respondent had to be summoned. THErefore, it was ordered that the notice shall be issued to the respondent for 28.8.2000. THE case was again adjourned to 18.9.2000 to await service of the respondent. On 18.9.2000, none was present from both the sides, the notice was sent to the respondent vide letter dated 4.8.2000. Neither notice nor A.D. had been received back. Respondent was presumed to have been served. Respondent was, thus, proceeded ex-parte and the case was adjourned to for arguments. After hearing the Counsel for the applicant Mr. S.S. Rangi, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 11.6.1998 passed by the State Commission was required to be complied with, but in the facts and circumstances stated above, it is held that the opposite party has deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the State Commission on 11.6.1998. Opposite party is, therefore, held guilty of disobedience of the order passed by the State Commission as referred to above. There is no option but to take penal action against the opposite party. As such, the opposite party i.e. Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd. through their Director, Nitin Manhar Lal Parikh, on the address "H. Maker Tower, Kho-J-29, Ra-Ramanda, G.D. Somji Marg, Mumbai-5", is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

Necessary warrants be sent for arresting the person concerned to the Police Commissioner, Police Headquarters Mumbai, for being forwarded to the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned and the Superintendent Jail, for taking the person into custody, when produced, to undergo sentence passed by this Commission. Copy of this order be sent to the parties by registered post. E.A. disposed of.