Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Members
MAFATLAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INDIA)—Petitioner
versus
S. SURYANARAYANA—Respondent
R.P. No. 113 of 1994—Decided on 31.1.1995
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:M/s. B. Janakirama Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
Compliance with the court order and fulfillment of the complaint's demands can lead to the setting aside of imprisonment orders in consumer dispute cases.
Headnote:
Imprisonment - Consumer Dispute - The court set aside the imprisonment order as the shares were received by the complainant and the order of the District Forum was complied with entirely.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sent a sum of Rs. 6,000 by way of Demand Draft for allotment of L.I.C. mutual fund shares, but no shares were allotted. The District Forum sentenced the Opposite Party to simple imprisonment for one month for non-compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the imprisonment order as the shares were received by the complainant and the order of the District Forum was complied with entirely.
Issues: Non-compliance with order, imprisonment of Opposite Party, receipt of shares by complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compliance with the order and the receipt of shares by the complainant as grounds to set aside the imprisonment order.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the imprisonment order was set aside.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—This revision is filed by the Opposite Party in CD. No. 48 of 1994, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum passed in E.P. No. 77 of 1994 whereby the Opposite Party was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The case of the complainant is that she sent a sum of Rs. 6,000/- by way of Demand Draft to M/s. Mafatlal Consultancy Services India Limited for allotment of 600 units of L.I.C. mutual fund. But no shares were allotted inspite of letter written by him dated 25.6.1994 as no shares were sent. He filed this complaint for a direction to the Opposite Party to allot the shares and also to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- towards compensation. Before the District Forum the Opposite Party remained ex-parte.
4. The District Forum ordered the complainant. As the Opposite Party did not comply with the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed a E.P. No. 77 of 1994. The District Forum by its order dated 26th day of October, 1994 sentenced the Opposite Party to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is preferred. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that they have sent a letter on receiving a notice in E.P. No. 77 of 1994 to the District Forum stating that they have not received the application of the complainant. But the District Forum without considerating of the said letter sent by the Opposite Party i.e., appellant herein ordered the imprisonment. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has sent shares to the complainant subsequent to the order in the Execution Petition. By virtue of the interim order dated 29.12.1994 pending the revision, we directed the Opposite Party to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/-. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner who filed a memo of full satisfaction signed by the complainant that he received duplicate share certificates sent by the Opposite Party. We direct that the amount of Rs. 500/- in deposit shall be paid to the complainant, since the shares were received by the complainant and the order of the District Forum was complied in its entirely. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the District Forum imposing the imprisonment for one month. The revision is allowed. No costs.
Revision allowed.
