P.DINAKARAN vs JANAK RAJ CHOPRA

THIS batch of revision petitions arises out of the proceedings taken under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the respondents-complainants.

COMPLAINTS of the respondents were allowed by the District Forum directing refund of the money deposited by them with the company of which the petitioner was Managing Director. The order of the District Forum has become final. Since the amount so awarded was not paid, proceedings under Section 27 of the Act was initiated. Orders were passed for imprisonment of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed in limine. Against the order of the State Commission this batch of revision petitions has been filed by the petitioner. On 21.5.2002 we passed the following order : "It is stated that in all these 19 revision petitions, there is an amount of about Rs. 5.00 lakhs involved. We have put it to Mr. V. Singhania, Counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is prepared to give an undertaking that he will deposit the amount in question within four weeks, then we might extend the stay."

Mr. Singhania states that the undertaking of the petitioner may be recorded and that the petitioner will, according to him, deposit this amount. Let the statement of Mr. P. Dinakaran, petitioner be recorded on oath. He has been administered the oath and his undertaking recorded. We accept his undertaking.

If the petitioner deposits the amount as undertaken by him with the Registrar of this Commission, the Registrar shall keep this amount in a short-term deposit with a nationalised Bank until further orders. The petitioner shall make the said payment by means of a bank draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, NCDRC, New Delhi - 100 001.

THE petitioner shall remain bound by the aforesaid undertaking. Period of four weeks shall not be extended on any account. In case of default, the stay which we granted shall stand vacated without any further reference to this Commission. This will be apart from the action this Commission may take for breach of the undertaking. In this view of the matter, stay granted earlier shall continue on the conditions aforesaid. Let these revision petitions be listed for directions and further proceedings on 10th July, 2002. Today when the matter was taken up it was submitted by Mr. Singhania, Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had not complied with the undertaking given by him as recorded in our aforesaid order on 21.5.2002.

WE do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No fault can be found in the order of the Forums below inasmuch petitioner had defaulted with the order passed requiring refund of the money. WE, therefore, dismiss the petition with cost of Rs. 1,000/- in each of the revision petitions. Revision Petitions dismissed.