BOLARIA FINANCERS vs Babu Singh

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and opposite party No. 1 Shri Babu Singh appearing personally and for his wife - opposite party No. 2 Smt. Surjit Kaur. WE have also examined the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) dated 2.2.2001 which is the subject-matter of this revision. The order passed by the District Forum-II on 2.2.2001 in Execution Case No. 124 of 2000, reads as under : "Complainant in person. Mr. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Adv., for O.P. ............................. Warrant received back unserved. So fresh warrant be issued for 30.3.2001. Counsel for the opposite party moved an application for directions to the complainants to prove sufficient means and malafide intention of the judgment-debtor, for non-payment of decretal amount, before issuing the arrest warrant as the application copy supplied to the complainants. For reply to the application adj. to 30.3.2001. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- 2.2.2001 Member Member President"

THIS order was passed in the execution application filed in Complaint Case No. 14 of 1996 filed by Shri Babu Singh & Anr. v. M/s. Bolaria Financers, Branch Office, 226, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) for complying with orders dated 2.11.1999 in Appeal No. 291 of 1.2.2000. It appears from perusal of the order dated 11.7.2000 passed by this Commission and a copy of which is on record of the file of the District Forum-II that the successful applicant/complainant was directed to approach the Trial Court for the purpose of execution. It appears that the District Forum-II issued a Show Cause Notice to the opposite party for 5.10.2000. The case was taken up on 5.10.2000 and was adjourned to 15.11.2000 as the quorum was incomplete. On 15.11.2000, the Forum passed the following orders : "Complainant in person. ............................. The order passed by this Forum has yet not been complied with. Sufficient time has elapsed. Even the show cause notice issued to opposite party has not brought any response. So to get our order implemented and to secure the personal attendance of opposite party, we are forced to take coercive action under Section 27 of C.P.A. Let the warrants be issued against opposite party for 2.2.2001. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- 15.11.2K Member Member President" At this stage warrant received back unserved."

It was on 2.2.2001 despite the presence of the opposite party through Mr. Naresh Bansal, Advocate, the order under revision was passed.

The primary contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that Section 27 of the C.P. Act does not empower the District Forum to issue warrants for the arrests of the opposite party to the application under Section 27 of the C.P. Act. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 27 of the C.P. Act, which reads as under : "27. Penalties-Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made (or the complainant) fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trade or person (or complainant) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum amount, specified in this section."

A careful perusal of Section 27 of the C.P. Act will go to show that the District Forum or for that matter, this State Commission or even the Hon''ble National Commission can impose penalty on the defaulting persons such as trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or even the complainant. The only condition is that such trader or person or complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the penalties provided under Section 27 of the C.P. Act are for imposing imprisonment or fine or both. Imprisonment can be for a minimum period of one month and may extend to three years. The fine shall not be less than Rs. 2,000/- but may extend to Rs. 10,000/-. The proviso to Section 27 of the C.P. Act empowers the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be on its being satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum amount as specified in the section. It is also equally settled that such a penalty cannot be imposed unless an opportunity is afforded to such trader or person or the complainant as the case may be. In order to secure the attendance of such trader, person or the complainant, a notice of showing cause is to be issued by the District Forum and once such trader, person or the complainant has put in appearance whether in person or through Counsel, coercive process need not be issued. In other words, when the purpose of issuing a Show Cause Notice is achieved by the presence of the parties through the Counsel, the issuance of further process by issuing warrant of arrest to secure the presence is rendered unnecessary. In the instant case, once the opposite party put in appearance through the Counsel Mr. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocate, the order issuing fresh warrants for 30.3.2001 cannot be legally justified and the District Forum should have recalled the said order upon the appearance of the opposite parties through the Counsel. In these facts and circumstances, we allow the revision to the extent that the order under revision insofar as it relates to the issuance of fresh warrants for 30.3.2001 is set aside. The execution case is still pending before the District Forum-II for decision on merit, the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in the Execution Case No. 124 of 2000 on 24.5.2001. A copy of this order duly attested be handed over to the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as to the opposite party Shri Babu Singh free of charges. Revision Petition partly allowed.