PARMESHWAR EXPORTS (P) LTD. vs AUTOLINKS LTD.

THIS petition, filed under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 29.10.2002 passed by District Forum (South) in Complaint Case No. 1610/2002 - entitled Parmeshwar Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Autolinks Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition briefly stated are that the appellant M/s. Parmeshwar Exports (P) Ltd. had filed a Complaint bearing No. 1728/1998 - entitled M/s. Parmeshwar Exports (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Autolinks Ltd. in the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent M/s. Autolinks Ltd. In that complaint, it was stated that appellant''s car was under warranty period when it became out of order on 17.5.1998. THE appellant contacted the respondent and the mechanic of the respondent who came to attend the car charged a sum of Rs. 538/- for the change of the cable and another sum of Rs. 288/- for services rendered. THE petitioner made the payment but no bill or receipt was issued and the executive of the respondent Company assured that the billing part will be taken care of by them. However, nothing was done by the respondent hence the appellant filed a complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 17,110/- which included the payment made by the appellant to the respondent alongwith transport charges, towing charges, mental agony and cost of litigation. THE learned District Forum directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 818/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.m. from 17.5.1998 till payment and also awarded Rs. 200/- to be paid by the respondent to the appellant as cost of the proceedings. The above order was passed on 3.10.2001. However, the respondent did not comply with the order hence the appellant filed an application under Section 27 of the Act for the implementation of that order passed by the learned District Forum. The learned District Forum issued a notice to the respondent and in response to the notice, the respondent presented a cheque of Rs. 1,141/- which included the amount awarded by the District Forum including interest. However, the same was not acceptable to the appellant who insisted that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment as he had failed to comply with the order within the time allowed. The learned District Forum rejected that prayer of the petitioner and directed the respondent to forward a cheque to the petitioner by post. Not satisfied by this order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

We have heard both the parties and have also carefully considered the order passed by the learned District Forum as well as other documents on record.

SECTION 27 of the Act provides penalties in case the order is not complied with which reads as follows : "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 trader 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."

From the bare reading of Section 27 of the Act, it is apparent that it comes into operation if the complainant or the O.P. fails to comply with the order passed by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. It would mean that it is an alternative remedy in case the order is not complied with. In the instant case, after the petitioner moved an application under Section 27 of the Act, a notice was issued to the respondent who on the first date made compliance of the order and presented a cheque of Rs. 1,441/- for payment to the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to accept the cheque and insisted for sentencing the respondent to imprisonment. It has been argued by the petitioner that the order was passed on 3.10.2001 and was not complied with by the respondent for about a year and hence respondent should be punished under Section 27 of the Act by sentencing to imprisonment. We are unable to accept this contention of the petitioner which is devoid of substance. Section 27 comes into operation only when the order has not been complied with. In this case, on the first date after the notice was issued to the respondent it complied with the order. There is no such provision under the Act under which the discretion has been given to the complainant to choose the alternative remedy. In our opinion, the order passed by the District Forum is a well discussed and reasoned order and we do not find any infirmity in the order. Hence the petition, filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. The above petition stands disposed of in above terms. R.P. disposed of.