RAYMOND SYNTHETICS LIMITED-/ vs Babulal Khemka

THIS is a revision petition under Sec. 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 30.1.92 passed in Complaint Case No. 790/91 on an application under Sec. 27 of the Act. It is not necessary to recount the facts leading to this revision. Suffice it to state that the District Forum, Jaipur by its order dated 17.5.91 passed in Complaint Case No. 790/91 directed the opposite party (before the District Forum) to pay to the complainant-non-petitioner Rs. 750/- and interest and Rs. 200/- as costs. As the opposite party-petitioner failed to comply with the order an application under Sec. 27 of the Act was submitted praying that the opposite party-petitioner may adequately be punished for disobedience of the order. The District Forum ordered that Shri P.K. Bhandari, General Manager, Raymond Synthetics Ltd. should be punished and it passed a sentence of one month''s imprisonment against him. An order for issuing warrant to the concerned police station was issued. Against that the opposite party-petitioner has come up in revision. By our ad interim order the operation of the order dated 30.1.92 was stayed. The relevant part of the order is as follows: - "We direct the petitioner to pay balance of the entire amount payable in pursuance of the order of the District Forum to the complainantnon-petitioner, in case he accepts it. If he does not accept the amount then to deposit the amount with the District Forum within two days from today. If the amount is deposited and an undertaking is given by the petitioner that Mr. P.K.J. Bhandari, General Manager (Finance) of the petitioner will appear before the District Forum as and when called upon to do so, his presence before the District Forum will not be enforced until final orders are passed on the application, for, staying operation of the order that has been submitted with the memo or revision. The operation of the order dated 30.1.92 shall be stayed until further orders from the State Commission. No action will be taken in pursuance of the warrant which has been ordered to be sent by the District Forum to the Police for service".

IN pursuance of the notice appearance has been put on behalf of the complainant-non-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate and Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate have appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. We have heard them at some length. It is not in dispute at this point of time that the order dated 17.5.91 of the District Forum, Jaipur has been complied with and no amount is outstanding against the opposite party-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Arora invited our attention to (1992) 73 Company Cases 762 and submitted that he has paid the amount even in pursuance of the direction given by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless the fact remains that the order dated 17.5.91 was not complied with within the period allowed by the District Forum, Jaipur. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no order under Sec. 27 of the Act should have been passed by the District Forum. In the alternative it was submitted that if any order was necessary then in any case sentence of substantive imprisonment should not have been passed and the ends of justice would have been met if fine would have been imposed and lastly, it was submitted that if the above submissions made by the petitioner are not accepted, then in any case resort should be made to the proviso to Sec. 27 of the Act. Mr. J. Ravi Chandran, Dy. Secretary, Raymond Synthetics Ltd. has given an undertaking in writing on behalf of Raymond Synthetics Ltd. that in future if any orders are passed by Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 they will be complied with in terms of the order subject to any variation made in appeal etc.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned Counsel for the opposite party-petitioner invited our attention to 1992 (1) CPR page 287. We have carefully read the decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. This is not applicable to the case on hand for a notice dated 11.11.91 for the hearing of 4.12.91 was given to the opposite party-petitioner to show cause why a fine of Rs. 10,000/- be not imposed and sentence of three years imprisonment be not passed. If the opposite party-petitioner did not choose to appear, the blame lies with it. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the District Forum should not be interfered with in exercise of the State Commission''s power under Sec. 17(b) of the Act as sentence of minimum term of imprisonment has been passed by the District Forum, Jaipur. We have bestowed our best and thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the parties. A few facts may be recalled. The District Forum passed the order on 17.5.91 for payment of Rs. 750/-, and interest and costs amounting to Rs. 200/-. There is no dispute that one month''s time was allowed for payment to the opposite party- petitioner. Mr. Arora stated that after the passing of the order on 13.2.92 by the State Commission that the amount was paid to the complainant-non-petitioner in June, 1992. He further submitted that after passing of the ad interim order dated 13.2.92, the entire amount was paid in terms of the order. Thus the order passed by the District Forum stands complied with. Sec. 27 of the Act deals with penalties. It is as under:- "27. Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made fails or omits to company with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person 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 a mount lesser than the minimum amount specified in this Section."

THE section prescribes for the minimum punishment. THE proviso is an exception. If the redressal agencies are satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, it may impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum fine specified in the section. THE discretion has been given provided the circumstances of the case are such that a lesser penalty is required to be passed. Reasons are, of course to be recorded as it is a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary imposition of the lenient punishment. Subsequent event has taken place during the pendency of the revision. THE principle incorporated under Sec. 27 in the Act is that a party against whom an order is passed by a Redressal Forum fails or omits to comply with the order then he should be punished. In this case taking all events from 17.5.91 upto the date of the passing of the ad interim order in revision on 13.2.92, we are opinion that the circumstances of the case do not require substantive minimum term of imprisonment and set aside that part of the order. THE ends of justice would be made if a fine is imposed on the opposite party-petitioner. We have also kept in view that it is a first case of disobedience of the order of the Redressal Forum passed against the opposite party-petitioner. We have also taken an undertaking from the opposite party-petitioner. Taking all these into consideration in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction we impose a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the opposite party-petitioner and direct that the amount of fine should be deposited with the District Forum within 7 days from today in cash/Bank Draft. THE Draft should be prepared in the name of District Forum, Jaipur. THE competent officer of the opposite party-petitioner shall furnish an affidavit before the State Commission deposing that the fine as ordered has been deposited with the District Forum. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner submitted that costs of the revision should be awarded as the non-petitioner is an Advocate. We are not inclined to award costs. Having considered the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.

THE revision petition is allowed in part and the order dated 30.1.92 is modified. THE opposite party-petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for not complying with the order as passed by the District Forum on 17.5.91. THE fine shall be deposited with the District Forum either in cash or by Bank Draft in the name of the District Forum, Jaipur City, Jaipur within 7 days from today. Having considered the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs of the revision. Revision partly allowed.