ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. NINETEEN CLAIMS WERE FILED BY DIFFERENT DEPOSITORS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM AGAINST THE APPELLANT CLAIMING A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS 5,00,000 (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS). THE DISTRICT FORUM UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE COMPLAINANTS. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 BEING ISSUED, THE APPELLANT APPEARED AND RAISED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS. THE OBJECTIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM BY AN ORDER DATED 23-10-2000. THE DISTRICT FORUM FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE 19 CASES AND THE SENTENCES WERE DIRECTED TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY. NON-BAILABLE WARRANTS OF ARREST WERE DIRECTED TO BE ISSUED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 3. THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION WAS REJECTED ON 15-10-2001. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, AN ORDER WAS PASSED ON 21-5-2002. IT WAS RECORDED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREPARED TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING THAT HE WOULD DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WITHIN FOUR WEEKS. THE UNDERTAKING OF THE APPELLANT WAS ACCORDINGLY B RECORDED ON OATH AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. IT WAS FURTHER DIRECTED: "IF THE PETITIONER DEPOSITS THE AMOUNT AS UNDERTAKEN BY HIM WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THIS COMMISSION, THE REGISTRAR SHALL KEEP THIS AMOUNT IN A SHORT-TERM DEPOSIT WITH A NATIONALISED BANK UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. THE PETITIONER SHALL MAKE THE SAID PAYMENT BY MEANS OF A BANK DRAFT DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE REGISTRAR, NCDRC, NEW DELHI 110001. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS WOULD NOT BE EXTENDED ON ANY COUNT AND IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT THE STAY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION WOULD BE VACATED. " 4. IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE US WHICH WAS PASSED ON 10-7-2002 IT IS RECORDED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION THAT WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT HAD STATED BEFORE IT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY HIM AS RECORDED ON 21-5-2002. ACCORDINGLY, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 21(B) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. THE REVISIONAL APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED WITH COSTS WHICH WERE ASSESSED AT RS 20,000. 5. THE NOTICE WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THIS COURT WAS LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 27 OF THE ACT. THE REVISIONAL APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED WITH COSTS WHICH WERE ASSESSED AT RS 20,000. 5. THE NOTICE WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THIS COURT WAS LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 27 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SECTION 27 PROVIDES THAT IF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM OR THE STATE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL COMMISSION IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS PASSED, BEFORE HE CAN BE PUNISHED, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FORA MUST APPLY THEIR MINDS TO THE QUANTUM OF SUCH PUNISHMENT. THE SECTION READS THUS: "27. PENALTIES.-WHERE A TRADER OR A PERSON AGAINST WHOM A COMPLAINT IS MADE OR THE COMPLAINANT FAILS OR OMITS TO COMPLY WITH ANY ORDER MADE BY THE DISTRICT FORUM, THE STATE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SUCH TRADER OR PERSON OR COMPLAINANT SHALL BE PUNISHABLE 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: PROVIDED THAT THE DISTRICT FORUM, THE STATE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY, IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY CASE SO REQUIRE, IMPOSE A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT OR FINE, OR BOTH, FOR A TERM LESSER THAN THE MINIMUM TERM AND THE AMOUNT LESSER THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT, SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION." 6. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN STATE OF KAMATAKA V. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING COOP. SOCIETY1 THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO ORDER PASSED BY ANY OF THE SEVERAL FORA AT THE DIFFERENT LEVELS CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE APPELLANT. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MADE ANY DEPOSIT PURSUANT TO THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEVERTHELESS, AN AMOUNT OF ABOUT "RS 54,00,000" (RUPEES FIFTY-FOUR LAKHS) HAD BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE DELHI HIGH COURT. AN ORDER DATED 12-9-2001 UNDER WHICH BAIL WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN THIS CONTEXT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IN THAT DECISION THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT WAS UPHELD. AN ORDER DATED 12-9-2001 UNDER WHICH BAIL WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN THIS CONTEXT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IN THAT DECISION THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT WAS UPHELD. THE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS PARAGRAPH 39 WHICH READS THUS: "THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADEQUATELY BEEN SAFEGUARDED BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT INASMUCH AS ALTHOUGH IT PROVIDES FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM OF CONSUMER JURISDICTION ON SUMMARY TRIAL, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION BASED ON REASONS. EVEN WHEN QUANTIFYING DAMAGES, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AIMING NOT ONLY AT RECOMPENSING THE INDIVIDUAL BUT ALSO TO BRING ABOUT A QUALITATIVE CHANGE IN THE ATTITUDE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER. ASSIGNMENT OF REASONS EXCLUDES OR AT ANY RATE MINIMISES THE CHANCE OF ARBITRARINESS AND THE HIGHER FORUMS CREATED UNDER THE ACT CAN TEST THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF." 8. WE HAVE SCRUTINISED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM IMPOSING SENTENCE. THE DISTRICT FORUM NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED AMOUNTS FROM SEVERAL OTHERS INCLUDING THE COMPLAINANTS; THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PAID THE AMOUNT AS DIRECTED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM IN EACH OF THE CASES; THAT THE APPELLANT HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE FORUM ON DIFFERENT DATES AND COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY REPLY IN ANSWER TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE ACT EXCEPT FOR AN APPLICATION BY THE APPELLANT IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE CRIMINAL CASES WERE PENDING AGAINST THE APPELLANT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FORUM SHOULD BE STAYED. 9. THE DISTRICT FORUM HAS RECORDED THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THAT SHRI P. DINAKARAN, MD OF THE COMPANY SHALL BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS IN EACH OF THE CASES. SENTENCE IN EACH CASE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY ONE AFTER OTHER." IT CANNOT BE SAID IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE DISTRICT FORUM HAD NOT APPLIED ITS MIND OR GIVEN REASONS FOR IMPOSING THE SENTENCE IT DID. 10. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE DISTRICT FORUM SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS 54,00,000 (RUPEES FIFTY-FOUR LAKHS). WE HAVE SCRUTINISED THE ORDER OF THE A DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTING BAIL. 10. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE DISTRICT FORUM SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS 54,00,000 (RUPEES FIFTY-FOUR LAKHS). WE HAVE SCRUTINISED THE ORDER OF THE A DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTING BAIL. THAT ORDER RECORDS SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT IN THAT CASE HAD ALREADY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RUPEES FIFTY-FOUR LAKHS. WHAT IS RECORDED IS, THEREFORE, A MERE SUBMISSION AND NOT A STATEMENT. THERE ARE NO PARTICULARS AS TO WHETHER THE SUM HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE HIGH COURT OR IN ANY OTHER COURT. THERE IS ALSO NO PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT HAVING BEEN MADE. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 11. FINALLY, NO EXPLANATION IS FORTHCOMING EVEN TODAY AS TO WHY THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN ON OATH BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPELLANT. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION WAS, THEREFORE, PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION. 12. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS AND THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM SENTENCING THE APPELLANT TO 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE CASES IS UPHELD. LET NON-BAILABLE WARRANTS OF ARREST ARE ISSUED. 13. HOWEVER, WHILE SERVING OUT THE SENTENCE IF THE APPELLANT MAKES PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT TO THE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE, WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE US, IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE APPELLANT TO APPROACH THE DISTRICT FORUM FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INHIBITING THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT FORUM IN THE EVENT SUCH A SITUATION ARISES.