A petitioner is not entitled to a stay of a warrant of arrest as a matter of right, but may be entitled to a stay if he complies with certain conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Order dated 21st August , 2019 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer, Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short state Commission) in appeal No. 587 of 2019, has been assailed by filing present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner contended that the award holder/opposite party herein is customer of the petitioner herein, who filed an application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (in short Act of 1986) before the learned District Forum , South 24 Parganas at Baruipur, wherein the District Forum directed petitioner herein to complete the installation of the elevator/lift at the premises of the opposite party/complainant and to hand over the elevator/lift in working condition and to provide the lift license from the appropriate authority for proper use of the same within 60 days from the said order. It has also been directed that the complainant/opposite party herein shall pay the balance amount of lift/elevator installation cost of Rs. 3,000,000/-within that period. It was further held that opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for harassment and mental agony and of Rs. 20,000/-towards litigation cost and it was further ordered that if the elevator/lift is not installed within the aforesaid period, petitioner herein will bear further cost of Rs. 20,000/-, towards punitive damages, which will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.

2. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission and said appeal got dismissed by the State Commission with a cost of Rs.10,000/-being payable by the appellant to the respondents and thereby affirmed the order of the District Forum. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the National Commission being RP No. 520 of 2019 and National Commission has disposed of the said appeal on 14th May, 2019, whereby the Revision petition was dismissed as the National Commission was of the view that the order impugned does not call for any interference in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

3. Opposite party/decree holder filed execution case being EA 100/2018 before the District Forum for execution of the aforesaid order. The petitioner/award debtor states that after passing the final order by the National Commission, the petitioner tried his level best to comply the order of the District Forum, but due to some problems generated in compliance of the said order, he could not install the lift/elevator. In the meantime by the order dated 17.01.2019, warrant of arrest has been issued by learned District Forum on the ground that no order of stay has been granted by the National Commission. Even after dismissal of the revisonal application, the warrant of arrest is in fact and still in force. Petitioner further alleged that due to continuance of said warrant of arrest order, the entire business operation of the petitioner company get closed. However, for the purpose of the compliance of the said order, the petitioner issued letter to decree holder Smt. Mousumi Roy on 30.05.2019 and on 06.06.2019, which she received but declined to co-operate. The petitioner/judgment debtor submits that he filed several petitions before the District Forum stating his willingness to comply the order but he could not carry out the same in view of non access to the site.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2019 read with other orders dated 17.01.2019, 15.03.2019, 20.04.2019, 20.05.2019, 20.06.2019 passed by learned District Forum, had preferred appeal under section 27A of the Act of 1986 with a prayer that the commission may be pleased to allow Applicant/company to comply the final order passed on 14th February, 2017 by directing the District Forum to grant stay in respect of the order of warrant of arrest, pending since 17.01.2019, so that he can comply the order dated 14th February, 2017 and also for directing the complainant/oppo