AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") has been filed by the three Opposite Parties arrayed in the Consumer Complaint Case No. 131 of 2011, against the order, dated 07.09.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata (for short, "the State Commission") whereby the Appeal preferred by them u/s 27A of the Act has been dismissed.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24, Parganas, Judges Court, Alipore, Kolkata (for short, "the District Forum") has allowed the Consumer Complaint Case No. 131 of 2011 filed by the Respondent/ Complainant with the following directions:-
" The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damage for causing delay in respect of delivery of possession, a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards house rent for the period from April to June, a sum of Rs.1 lakh for compensation and a sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs towards cost and expenses of proposed construction and cost of Rs.2,000/-, totaling Rs.4,66,000/- within one month from the date, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
The O.Ps are also directed to hand over KMC tax clearance certificate and completion certificate and copy of plan and all other necessary papers for mutation within one month from this date.
The complainant shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution in accordance with law for non-compliance of the order after the time giving for compliance. Let a plain copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost."
The said order has attained finality.
The proceedings u/s 27 of the Act were initiated against the Opposite Parties and warrant of arrests were directed to be issued. The Petitioner herein was arrested and detained, whereupon an Appeal was preferred u/s 27A of the Act which was dismissed by the State Commission. Execution Revision Petition No. 85 of 2014 was filed by the Petitioners before this Commission which was also dismissed. However, it was directed that till the disposal of proceedings u/s 27A of the Act, the Petitioner shall continue to remain on bail. The District Forum was also requested to dispose of the proceedings u/s 27A of the Act within six months.
The District Forum, vide order dated 22.06.2015, proceeded with the matter and directed to keep cognizance u/s 27A of the Act against all the Judgement Debtors. Judgement Debtor No. 3, Sanjib Das was taken into custody and send to Correctional Home with a direction to produce on 03.07.2015 and non-bailable warrants were issued against Judgement Debtor No. 2 and trial was ordered against the Judgement Debtor No.3 u/s 27 of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an Appeal u/s 27A of the Act before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal, whereupon, the Petitioners has preferred this Revision Petition.
Without going into the merits of the case, we may mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K.A. Nagamani - AIR 2019 SC 2290 has held that no Revision Petition against the order passed in Appeal filed U/s 27A of the Act, is maintainable before this Commission inasmuch as the original complaint is not pending. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction Under Section 21(b) by the National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been filed before the State Commission.[1] The jurisdiction Under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only in case of a "consumer dispute" filed before the State Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction Under Section 21(b) is concerned about the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Commission in a "consumer dispute"."
XXXXXXXX
"7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission.
Section 25(3) states:
Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.
(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order in the 'consumer dispute' since it stands finally decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties.
7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the 'consumer dispute'."
XXXXXXXXX
"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 Petition Under Section 21(b) filed by the Appellant-Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings."
Respectfully following the law laid down in aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any Revision u/s 21 (b) of the Act against an order passed by the State Commission u/s 27A of the Act in execution proceedings, we dismiss the present Revision Petition as not maintainable, leaving it open to the Petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with the law.