TRILOCHAN SINGH TREWN Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 3. 10. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed.

(2.) APPEAL under Section 27a of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable as no order has been passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is only when a trader or person against whom a complaint is made fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum that person can be punished 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. Otherwise also, the complaint filed by Sh. Trilochan Singh Trewn vide order dated 22. 8. 2003 was allowed and Sh. Rajinder Kumar Gupta, respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000 with interest @ 7% from the date of deposit i. e. 13. 1. 1999 till payment. Besides it, he was also awarded costs of Rs. 1,000. Vide order dated 5. 4. 2004 the total amount was specified to be Rs. 76,212 and respondent was directed to pay the amount in instalments starting from April, 2004 to 31. 12. 2004.

(3.) RESPONDENT had produced on file copies of receipts showing that the entire amount of Rs. 76,212 had been paid in instalments during the period from 28. 4. 2004 to 10. 3. 2005. The appellant had disputed the receipts and stated that he had not received the amount. Consequently the receipts were sent to the Government examiner of questioned documents, directorate of forensic science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Chandigarh and Government examiner had sent his report dated 31. 3. 2006 and according to that report, the disputed signatures on the receipts were written by the appellant. Thus, in view of the report of Government examiner of questioned documents, it is proved that appellant had signed the original receipts which were produced by the respondent and thus entire amount of Rs. 76,212 had been paid to the appellant.