Case: P. Dinakaran Vs. Janak Raj Chopra &amp; Others

2. Nineteen claims were filed by different depositors before the District Forum against the appellant claiming a total amount of Rs 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs). The District Forum upheld the claim of the complainants. Notice under S.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being issued, the appellant appeared and raised various objections. The objections were rejected by the District Forum by an order datedThe District Forum further directed that the appellant should be sentenced to imprisonment for six months in respect of each of the 19 cases and the sentences were directed to run consecutively. Non bailable warrants of arrest were directed to be issued against the appellant.3. The appeal of the appellant before the State Commission was rejected onWhen the matter came up before the National Commission, an order was passed onIt was recorded that the appellant was prepared to give an undertaking that he would deposit the amount in question within four weeks. The undertaking of the appellant was accordingly recorded on oath and was accepted by the National Commission. It was furtherthe 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 110 001.It is made clear that the period of four weeks would not be extended on any count and in case of any default the stay of the order of the State Commission would be vacated.In the order impugned before us which was passed onit is recorded by the National Commission that when the matter was taken up counsel appearing for the appellant had stated before it that the appellant had not complied with the undertaking given by him as recorded onAccordingly, the National Commission was of the view that it was not a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revisional application was dismissed with costs which were assessed at Rs 20,000.5. The notice which was issued by this Court was limited to the question of interpretation of S.27 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that S.27 provides that if an order of the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission is not complied with by the person against whom the order is passed, before he can be punished, the Consumer Protection Fora must apply their minds to the quantum of such punishment. The section readse 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."

Reasoning: 11. Finally, no explanation is forthcoming even today as to why the undertaking given on oath before the National Commission was not complied with by the appellant. The National Commission was, therefore, perfectly justified in rejecting the appellants application.We have scrutinised the order of the District Forum imposing sentence. The District Forum noticed that the appellant had received amounts from several others including the complainants; that the appellant had not paid the amount as directed by the District Forum in each of the cases; that the appellant had appeared before the Forum on different dates and could not submit any reply in answer to the notice under S.27 of the Act except for an application by the appellant in which it was stated that since criminal cases were pending against the appellant the proceedings before the Forum should beis recorded is, therefore, a mere submission and not a statement. There are no particulars as to whether the sum has been deposited in the High Court or in any other court. There is also no proof of such deposit having been made. It may also be noted that the undertaking given to the National Commission was subsequent to the order of the Delhi High Court.