2025 Supreme(SC) 1247

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5536-5538 of 2025 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30579-30581 of 2019]
Decided On : 22-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Enforcement of final orders of District Forum, State Commission or National Commission – Against an order passed by District Forum in execution petition, appeal shall lie to State Commission under Section 15 of 1986 Act with no further remedy of appeal or revision – Neither an appeal nor a revision against an order passed by State Commission in an appeal filed against order of District Forum in execution proceedings shall be maintainable before National Commission.
(2) Interpretation of Statute – In case, provision is vague and ambiguous or normal meaning may lead to confusion, absurdity or repugnancy with other provisions, court may by using interpretative tools, set right the situation by adding or omitting or substituting words in statute.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 25 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 71] – Enforcement of final orders – For execution of any order except where monetary compensation has been awarded, if provisions of 1986 Act are considered, post 2002 Amendment Act, there is no provision providing for enforcement of orders – Even though 1986 Act is a self-contained Code, there being remedy, and earlier provisions providing for execution of order as a decree of civil court, person in whose favour such an order is passed may have to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court – This does not go with spirit of 1986 Act where informal procedure had been provided to make it more user friendly – In Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 words where ‘an interim order’ should be read as where ‘any order’ – Towards end of Sub-Section (1) and before words ‘may order the property.....’ following line shall be deemed to be added ‘enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and’ – This interpretation goes in line with what was being understood and applied by different fora even post 2002 Amendment in 1986 Act. (Paras 24 and 25)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 25 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 71] – Enforcement of final orders of District Forum, State Commission or National Commission – Against an order passed by District Forum in execution petition, appeal shall lie to State Commission under Section 15 of 1986 Act with no further remedy of appeal or revision – Neither an appeal nor a revision against an order passed by State Commission in an appeal filed against order of District Forum in execution proceedings shall be maintainable before National Commission – As no remedy will be available against first appellate order passed by State Commission in execution proceedings filed before District Forum, aggrieved party will be at liberty to avail of appropriate remedy in accordance with law.. (Paras 36, 37, 38.1 and 38.2)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – Normal principle of statutory interpretation is that when words used in statute are clear and unambiguous, same should be given their normal meaning without adding or rejecting any word – However, there is an exception to this general rule – In case, Court finds that provision is vague and ambiguous or normal meaning may lead to confusion, absurdity or repugnancy with other provisions, court may by using interpretative tools, set right the situation by adding or omitting or substituting words in statute. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:

Vide impugned order National Commission had opined that revision petitions filed by appellant society against order passed in execution proceedings were not maintainable as no consumer complaint was pending. It was further observed in that order that though the respondent/judgment-debtor did not have right to file revision petition before the State Commission, yet it had a right to file appeal under Section 27A of 1986 Act. Merely giving nomenclature of revision petition will not oust jurisdiction of the State Commission and the order passed by the State Commission should be treated to have been passed in exercise of powers under Section 27A of the 1986 Act.

Findings of Court:

Section 25(1) of 1986 Act shall be read as enumerated below for period from 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 with reference to all pending proceedings at any stage for execution of any order passed under 1986 Act:

“Section 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission:

(1) Where any order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.”

Result : Civil Appeals disposed of.