AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain,Presiding Member
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant .
This Appeal Execution has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2019 passed in execution petition no.14 of 2016 by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ('the State Commission').
The State Commission vide its order dated 04.02.2015 has passed the following order:
"In view of the statements made by the parties, let the amount of Rs.8,15,000/- be paid by the OPs to the complainants in five equal instalments. First instalment to commence with effect from 16.03.2015, subsequent instalment shall be paid on the 16 th date of each succeeding month. Last such instalment shall be paid on 16.07.2015. In the event of failure of the OPs to pay aforesaid amount on the scheduled date and within the stipulated period he shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount accruing in favour of the complainant.
Matter is accordingly disposed of as settled. Parties to honour their statements".
Learned counsel for the appellant states that amount under execution has been arrived at by calculating interest @ 24% per annum on the default period. The fact is that the amount of Rs.8,15,000/- was to be given back to the complainant in five instalments. The consent order was passed by the State Commission on 04.02.2015. The appellant defaulted in payment of most of the instalments, therefore, recovery certificates were issued for the instalments and no recovery has been issued for the interest part. Learned counsel states that 24% interest is not permissible and it should not have been more than 6% as provided in the CPC.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the material on record. First of all it is seen that 24% interest payable on the delayed instalment is a part of the consent order passed by the State Commission on 04.02.2015. It is further seen from the order of the State Commission dated 19.07.2019 that this order has been passed under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, where recovery certificate has been issued. There is no provision of appeal against the order passed by the State Commission or the District Forum, under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K.A. Nagamani, Civil Appeal No.4631 of 2019, decided on 06.05.2019 has observed as under:-15
"7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors .,has similarly held that execution proceedings cannot be regarded as a continuation of the Suit.
7.7. We affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court. Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute.
7.8. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.
7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition16 u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant - Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings."
From the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the execution proceedings are independent proceedings and not continuation of the complaint. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for appeals against the order of the State Commission passed in complaints filed under Section 17 (1) (a) (i). Thus, Section 19 cannot be used for filing appeal against the order passed by the State Commission under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Clearly there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing the appeal against an order passed by the State Commission under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is brought out that the appeal against the order passed under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable and consequently AE no.92 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.