Delhi Development Authority vs Shobhit Gupta

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Perused the material on record.

The chronological sequence is that the District Forum in c.c. no. 116 of 2005 passed its Order dated 31.12.2005.

The said Order dated 31.12.2005 of the District Forum has admittedly attained finality within the meaning of section 24 of the Act 1986.

In execution of the said final Order (decree) dated 31.12.2005, the District Forum passed its Order dated 15.12.2016 under section 27(1) of the Act, sentencing the judgment debtor - accused to simple imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-.

In appeal (execution), the State Commission passed its Order dated 22.05.2017 under section 27A of the Act, reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment to two years (with the fine of Rs.5,000/- unaltered).

The instant revision petition (execution) has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act by the judgment debtor - accused against the said Order dated 22.05.2017 of the State Commission.

Vide its Order dated 07.06.2017 the operation of the impugned Order dated 22.05.2017 of the State Commission was stayed by this Commission till the next date of hearing. The interim protection was then periodically extended till 15.05.2019 (today).

Execution proceedings, to execute a final Order (decree), whether for 'enforcement' under section 25(3) or for 'penalties' under section 27(1), are distinctively different from adjudication of a 'consumer dispute', and are separate and independent proceedings. The merit per se of the 'consumer dispute' cannot be re-visited or re-appraised in execution of the final Order (decree).

'consumer dispute' is defined in section 2(1)(e) of the Act (" "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations made in the complaint").

Section 21(b), Jurisdiction of the National Commission, is in relation to a 'consumer dispute' (" - - - to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission- - -").

Remedy against an Order passed under section 27, Penalties, or under Section 27A, Appeal against order passed under section 27, in execution of a final Order (decree), in the separate and independent execution proceedings, does not lie under section 21(b) of the Act 1986.

The revision petition (execution) is, thus, not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner draws our attention to the fact that the revision petition (execution) was filed on 06.06.2017. It was taken up by the bench on various dates, 07.06.2017, 23.06.2017, 07.12.2017, 22.10.2018, 20.11.2018, 12.12.2018, 13.02.2019, 12.03.2019, 27.03.2019 and 15.05.2019 (today). Interim protection, of staying the operation of the impugned Order dated 22.05.2017 of the State Commission, was provided. Learned counsel further submits, with all courtesy, that he respectfully disagrees with this bench's appreciation of the law and that the appellant would want to agitate the view of this bench before a superior Hon'ble Court and/or seek alternative remedy, for which he has to seek instructions. Protection of 60 days to agitate the view of this bench regarding maintainability of the revision petition (execution) and/or to seek alternative remedy may be provided.

This bench finds this to be a fair submission, and sees it in the right perspective.

The bench may add that it would also not want a situation of miscarriage of justice or of irreparable loss due to any misappreciation of law on its part, and would prefer scrutiny of a superior Hon'ble Court.

In the light of the above discussion, the revision petition (execution) is dismissed as not maintainable.

Till 60 days (only) from today (15.05.2019) the operation of the impugned Order dated 22.05.2017 of the State Commission shall remain stayed.

Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the State Commission, the District Forum and the respondent - decree holder by the Registry within 7 days.

'Dasti', in addition, at the request of learned counsel for the revision petitioners.