IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.08.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.23535 of 2001 L.Joseph Charlie ... Petitioner -Versus- 1.The Distric tConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli Road, Tuticorin. 2.N.Subbaiah, Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Kulathuvaipatti, Illampuvanam Post, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the 1st respondent in C.M.P.No.17 of 2001 in E.P.No.21 of 1998 in C.O.P.No.159 of 1997 and to direct the 1st respondent to recall or revoke the order made in E.P.No.21 of 1998 in C.O.P.No.159 of 1997. For petitioner : No Appearance For respondent (s): Mr.B.Vijay, Govt. Advocate for R3 ORDER The 2nd respondent filed a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Tuticorin against the petitioner herein in C.O.P.No.159 of 1997. The District Forum by order dated 04.06.1998 directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.500/- to the 2nd respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the same. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] in E.P.P.No.21 of 1998 for imposing appropriate penalty for the failure of the petitioner to comply with the order of the 1st respondent forum. The petitioner did not appear before the 1st respondent forum despite several notices. Finally, the 1st respondent forum conducted summary trial and convicted and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months by order dated 15.10.1998. A warrant for arrest was also issued by the 1st respondent forum and the same is pending. 2. While things stood thus, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.17 of 2001 before the 1st respondent forum to record compromise entered into between him and the 2nd respondent and to terminate the proceedings but the same was dismissed by the 1st respondent forum by order dated 19.10.2001. Challenging the same the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel who was on record for the petitioner had already withdrawn his vakalath. The petitioner has not made appearance. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent . The learned Government Advocate represents the 3rd respondent. 4. A short question which has arisen for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent Forum has got power to record compounding of offence for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as provided in Section 27 of the Act. 5. A perusal of Section 27 of the Act would go to show that for the purpose of trial of offences under the Act , the District Forum shall have the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and all the offences under the Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum. In this case, the 1st respondent forum has accordingly tried the petitioner and punished him to undergo imprisonment. If once such a punishment is imposed, the District Forum becomes functus officio either to entertain a petition for compounding or to recall the punishment imposed. 6. A perusal of the entire provisions of the Act would reveal that it does not say that the offences are compoundable. Neither the Act has empowered the District Forum to recall nor cancel the order of punishment imposed earlier on the ground of compromise reached between the parties. 7. As I have already stated, as per the scheme of the Act, the District Forum shall have all the powers of a First Class Magistrate which includes the restrictions on the power of the Magistrate as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is needless to point out that under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has got no power to alter or review any judgement or final order passed thereby disposing of a case except, the power to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This restriction imposed on the power of the Magistrate is very much applicable to the District Consumer Forum also and, therefore, there can be no impediment to hold that after imposing the punishment under Section 27 of the Act, the District Forum has got no power either to review or to alter the said order of punishment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In the instant case, as I have already narrated , the order of punishment was passed by the District Consumer Forum as early as on 15.10.1998. The said order of punishment is appealable as provided in Section 27-A of the Act to the State Commission. But, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order of punishment made Section 27 of the Act by the District Forum. Thus, the order of punishment has become final. 9. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 27 of the Act. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment dated 15.10.1998 in accordance with law subject to the period of limitation. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kmk To 1. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli Road, Tuticorin. 2. The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Kulathuvaipatti, Illampuvanam Post, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.62017. W.P.No.23535 of 2001 NSM(CO) VL 21.09.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/