LML LIMITED Vs. URMILA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by M/s. Lohia Machines Limited against the order dated 5th of September, 1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Kaithal under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, whereby a sentence of six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-was imposed on the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company, as the original order of the learned District Forum dated 15th of March, 1993 had not been complied with. In fact, much before the impugned order dated 5th of September, 1994 was passed by the District Forum, Kaithal, compliance of the original order dated 15th of March, 1993 had already been made by the opposite party-revision petitioner, by making entire payment on 21st of March, 1994. Therefore, the delay the impugned order was passed on 5th of September, 1994, mere was hardly any thing left with the learned District Forum about the order dated 15th of March, 1993. It appears that this factual position had not been brought to the notice of the learned District Forum and the impugned order dated 5th of September, 1994 was passed, in ignorance of the correct actual position.

(2.) The revision petition was filed before this Commission on 30th of September, 1994, which came up for orders on 3rd of October, 1994. On that date, the operation of the impugned order dated 5th of September, 1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Kaithal was stayed. Notice to the respondent (complainant) was issued on 26th of May, 1995. In response thereto, written statement has been sent by the respondent-Smt. Urmila Kumari by post, in which, though the fact of payment of the requisite amount stands admitted, yet it has been stated that since the petitioner had deliberately delayed the payment, learned District Forum had no other alternative but to pass the impugned order.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the compliance of the order dated 15th of March, 1993 passed by the District Forum had already been made by the revision petitioner much before the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum on 5th of September, 1994. Consequently, we allow the revision petition, quash the impugned order dated 5th of September, 1994, set aside the sentence imposed thereby and recall the warrants of arrest issued by the learned District Forum. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.