TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADURAI DIVISION II LTD Vs. REGISTRAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs.Kala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17182 of 2000 and Mr.M.Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.8193 and 8194 of 2001, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandra, learned counsel for the third respondent in all the writ petitions.

(2.) THE present writ petitions are filed under the following circumstances: In Consumer Original Petition No.78 of 1996 filed by the third respondent, a direction was issued for payment of certain amount by the opposite parties in the said consumer dispute, who are the present petitioners. Out of the total amount payable, the Transport Corporation deposited a cheque for Rs.1,169/- before the second respondent. But the balance amount has not been deposited. A proceeding was initiated for taking action as the order of the original District Forum had not been complied with. THE District Forum found that the order had not been complied with and directed that the person shall be imprisoned for a period of three months. Against such order, the petitioner in W.P.No.17182 of 2000 filed appeal. However, on the date, when the counsel for the appellant had remained unavoidably absent, the appeal was taken up and the Appellate Forum found that the order passed by the District Forum was justified and the Appellate Forum also noted that the counsel for the appellant was absent and accordingly, the order of the District Forum was confirmed. Against such order, these three writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) IT is apparent from the materials on record that the Transport Corporation was under the impression that there was joint and several liability and therefore, the Transport Corporation had deposited the cheque representing 1/3rd liability. Even though technically such impression of the Transport Corporation cannot be correct, one cannot question the bona fides of the Corporation. Be that as it may. Admittedly, the entire order had not been complied with, since the entire amount, as directed, had not been deposited which had to be paid to the concerned complainant. Thus, admittedly, there was failure or omission to comply with the order passed by the District Forum. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the District Forum was incorrect in holding that the order had not been complied with. However, while imposing penalty, the District Forum had the discretion. Instead of passing an order of imprisonment, the District Forum could have directed for payment of fine since this was a single transgression.