A partner in a firm not engaged in day-to-day operations cannot be held criminally liable for compliance failures under the Consumer Protection Act.

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 151 of CPC R/w petition filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , praying this Commission to punish the Respondents herein for non-implementing the orders of this Commission passed in CC.No.22 of 2016, dated 08.06.2017 and pass such further or other orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

a) To attend the works and complete the same by providing all the amenities/infrastructures, facilities mentioned in Ex.A13.

b) Compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

c) Costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

______________

Rs.30,000/-

______________

2. The petitioner has filed the present EA for non-compliance of the order passed by this Commission in CC.No.22/2016 dated 08.06.2017. The Respondents No.1,2,4,6 & 7 were examined under Section-251 Cr.P.C. and they pleaded not guilty for the offence U/s.27A of C.P.Act, 1986.

3. To prove the case for the Petitioner Evidence affidavit of PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.P1 to P17 are marked for the Petitioner. While marking the documents after completing Ex.P1 to P10, instead of marking from Ex.P11 onwards, by mistake the further documents are marked as Ex.P7 to P13. Therefore, the Ex.P7 to P13 are re-numbered as Ex.P11 to P17 to maintain continuity with the earlier exhibits. MO1 is marked for the Petitioner. Pen drive is marked as Ex.D1 for the Respondents.

4. Respondent No.1,2,4,6 and 7 are examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of PW1 & 2. R1 & R2 reported defence evidence and remaining Respondents pleaded that they do not know anything about the case. Respondents No.6 & 7 stated that long back they retired from the partnership firm and they never participated in the day to day affairs of the firm at any time. RW1 to 4 are examined as defence witnesses and got marked Ex.R1 to R36. Ex.X1 is also marked. Heard the arguments of both sides. Case law submitted by the counsel for Respondents.

5. Now the point for determination is –

(i) Whether the Petitioner established the guilt of Respondents No.1,2,4,6 and 7 for the offence U/s.27 of C.P.Act, 1986?

(ii) Whether Respondents No.4,6 &7 are liable for punishment being the partners of R1 Firm?

(iii) Whether Respondents No.4,6 & 7 have participated in the affairs of the Firm in its day to day transactions? If so, are they liable for punishment?

6. PW1 in his evidence dated 03.08.2023 stated that he is the General Secretary of Petitioner/“Gharonda Chamundeshwari Flat Owners Association”, but did not file the said letter of authorization to represent the Association members. He adds that repair works at the cellar of the said building were carried out by the Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 and almost 80% of the pending work at the cellar portion is complete, subsequent to orders passed in CC.No.22/2016.

7. During the course of progression of the works, he has only interacted and dealt with RW3 (2^nd Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 representing on behalf of 1^st Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 being the Managing Partner). He however, stated that all the Respondents met him to negotiate the amount due and also to supervise the work at the site. He claims to have filed the letter of authorization to file the present EA. PW1 was examined in cross.

8. The Petitioner/Complainant is relying on Ex.P7 to P12 to prove that the Respondents/Opposite Parties must be punished for not implementing the orders passed by this Commission in CC.No.22/2016 dated 08.06.2017. A perusal of these exhibits re