KOHINOOR CARPETS PANIPAT Vs. RAJINDER ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an appeal is maintainable under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum, under Sec.27 thereof, is the significant and threshold common question in this set of two appeals, i. e. , First Appeal Nos.6 and 11 of 1991. This order will govern both of them.

(2.) The requisite facts relevant to the issue aforesaid may be noticed with relative brevity from First Appeal No.11 of 1991 (M/s Kohinoor Carpets, Panipat V/s. Mr. Rajinder Arora ). The complainant Shri Rajinder Arora had instituted the proceedings before the District Forum, Hisar, which culminated in his favour by its order dated 11th April, 1990. Thereby compensation to the tune of Rs.750/- was awarded to the complainant and the present appellant was directed to either deposit the said amount with the District Forum or pay the same directly to the complainant within one month of the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the provisions of Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafer referred to as 'the Act') were to be invoked. The appellant Shri Nand Lal failed to comply with the said order within the time specified. At the instance of the complainant Rajinder Arora, the District Forum summoned the appellant to appear before it on the 13th August, 1990, but he yet again did not care to do so. Another direction was issued to him to come present on the 31st January, 1991 but even on this date he neither paid the compensation nor did he put in appearance. The District Forum vide the order under appeal came to the conclusion that the appellant had disobeyed its orders deliberately and proceeded to impose the penalty of one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- against the present appellant under Sec.27 of the Act. A warrant of arrest was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police for arresting him to undergo the period of imprisonment in the Sub Jail, Panipat. Aggrieved by the said imposition of penalty, the present appeal, purporting to be under Sec.15 of the Act, has been preferred. The position is similar in the connected First Appeal No.6 of 1991 (M/s Narwana Gas Service, Narwana V/s. Parmodh Kumar ).

(3.) Inevitably, the issue of the very maintainability of the appeals has cropped up at the threshold. Learned Counsel for the appellants were given repeated opportunities for addressing their submissions on this preliminary issue. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Counsel for the one of the appellants, had primarily based himself on the language of Sec.15. It was sought to be contended that this provision envisages an appeal by any person who is aggrieved by "an order" of the District Forum and with considerable literality (virtually bordering on the hypertechnicality), it was submitted that this Section visualises no preconditions or limitation, with the result that any other order made by the District Forum would become appealable if a grievance is raised by a party. It was pointed out that the imposition of penalty has been made by a formal order, which is expressly labelled as such and is dated 31st January, 1991. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, this order of imposition of penalty was within the wide-ranging ambit of Sec.15. Some tenuous reliance was sought to be placed on Shah Babulal Khimji V/s. Jayaben D. Kania and another, 1981 AIR(SC) 1786, with particular emphasis on paras 79 and 119 of the said judgment. Mr. R. P. Yadav, Advocate, on the other hand, had placed reliance on Kanshi Ram V/s. Siri Ram and another,1980 PunLR 642.