GOTETY PHANINDRA Vs. DURGA PRASAD RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection against respondents to sentence them with imprisonment as well as impose fine for non -compliance of order of this Commission in C.D. 80/1997 dated 21.4.2006.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that he filed a complaint against the respondents pertaining to an agreement of sale dated 30.6.1992, for compensation and damages. By order dated 23.11.2001 this Commission directed the respondents to pay Rs. 6 lakh with interest @ 18% p.a., from 30.6.1992 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by the said order R2 to R6 preferred F.A. No. 36/2002 before the National Commission which in turn dismissed it by order dated 12.4.2002. Thus the orders passed against R2 to R6 are confirmed. R1 preferred F.A. 806/2003 before the National Commission and the same was remanded for fresh consideration. on merits against R1 only. By order dated 21.4.2006 this Commission after considering the evidence placed on record, allowed the complaint directing R1 also to refund Rs. 6 lakh with interest @ 18% p.a., from 30.6.1992 till the date of payment by imposing joint and several liability. R1 did not prefer any appeal and the said order has become final. The said orders were not complied by any of the respondents. Therefore the petition is filed to punish the respondents by way of imprisonment and fine for non -compliance of the order.

(3.) WHEN show cause notice was issued, R1 filed counter raising several pleas which he had already taken in the main case and that he did not enter into any agreement, and that for the money financed, he gave blank forms without filling up the spaces which were cleverly filled up by the complainant. He also took two blank agreements and five blank cheques. The matter was not compromised in O.S. No. 1460/1992 on the file of IInd Additional Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The allegation that he had purchased the property at Rs. 200 per s.ft. is all misleading. In fact he had paid interest from July, 1992 to November, 1992. The complainant having received Rs. 7.20 lakh wanted to create problems in order to mislead his family members through his brother -in -law who happened to be a friend of complainant's father -in -law. He did not sell the flat with any dishonest intention. The amount given by the complainant was total used and paid to R2 to R6 and rest of the amount for completion of the venture Shirdi Apartments. Ex. A2 is a fabricated document. The complainant was not a consumer, and therefore prayed that E.A. be dismissed.