Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
M/s. K.S. Property Service and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Sri Sajal Kanti Majumdar and Others – Opp. Parties
C.O. No.724 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021
Consumer Protection Act - Execution of Orders - Sections 25, 27 - The court discussed the scope of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that Section 25 provides the specific procedure for enforcement of orders of the Forum/Commission by recovery of money, while Section 27 deals with penal measures in the form of imprisonment and/or fine for non-compliance. The court found that the impugned order directing arrest warrant to be issued was passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum and set it aside.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtors filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed the execution and submission of a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors. The complainant had lodged a complaint against the judgment-debtors, and the District Forum had allowed the complaint, directing the judgment-debtors to make over delivery of possession of a plot of land and pay compensation and costs. The judgment-debtors preferred appeals, but the State Commission dismissed the appeals. The complainant initiated a proceeding under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking directions on the judgment-debtors to refund the amount and for imprisonment in case of non-compliance. The District Forum directed the execution of a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors, which was challenged by the judgment-debtors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order directing arrest warrant to be issued was passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum and set it aside. The court also directed the District Forum to expedite the hearing of the execution application and all connected interlocutory applications.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the jurisdiction of the District Forum to issue a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 25 provides the specific procedure for enforcement of orders of the Forum/Commission by recovery of money, while Section 27 deals with penal measures in the form of imprisonment and/or fine for non-compliance. The court found that the impugned order directing arrest warrant to be issued was passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum and set it aside.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and recalled the warrant of arrest issued by the impugned order. The court also directed the District Forum to expedite the hearing of the execution application and all connected interlocutory applications.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The primary legal issue concerns the enforcement of orders issued by Consumer Forums/Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act. It clarifies that Section 25 of the Act prescribes the specific procedure for enforcing such orders through recovery of money, whereas Section 27 addresses penal measures such as imprisonment and fines for non-compliance (!) (!) .
The court held that the order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against judgment-debtors was beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum. It emphasized that enforcement should be carried out under Section 25, which provides a detailed, multi-stage process for recovery, and that Section 27's penal provisions are not intended for enforcement of monetary awards (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that invoking Section 27 for enforcement purposes, such as issuing arrest warrants, without exhausting the procedures under Section 25, is not permissible. The enforcement of monetary awards must follow the procedures laid out in Section 25, and Section 27 is meant to impose penalties for non-compliance, not to serve as an alternative enforcement mechanism (!) (!) (!) .
The issuance of arrest warrants against parties who have already appeared before the Forum is unwarranted, especially when the proceedings are ongoing and the parties have shown willingness to comply. The order directing arrest was found to be without jurisdiction and therefore set aside (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the powers of Consumer Forums are limited to those expressly granted by the statute. They cannot extend beyond the scope of the provisions, and any action beyond those limits, such as issuing warrants of arrest without proper jurisdiction, is illegal (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that the availability of an alternative remedy or appellate process does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction by higher courts under constitutional articles, but such remedies should be exhausted before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing them (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that enforcement actions, such as attachment or recovery proceedings, should be initiated under Section 25, and penal measures under Section 27 are not substitutes for enforcement but are additional measures for penalizing non-compliance (!) (!) (!) .
The final decision was to set aside the order that issued the arrest warrant, recall the warrant, and direct the Forum to expedite the hearing of the execution proceedings. The court also confirmed that no costs would be awarded (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that enforcement of consumer order awards must strictly adhere to the statutory procedures outlined in Section 25, and that invoking penal provisions under Section 27 for enforcement purposes is improper and beyond jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the powers conferred under the Consumer Protection Act are limited to those expressly provided, and actions taken outside these provisions are liable to be declared illegal. Proper procedural compliance is essential for lawful enforcement (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively reinforce the importance of adhering to the specific enforcement procedures under the Consumer Protection Act and caution against overstepping jurisdiction by using penal provisions for enforcement purposes.
JUDGMENT :
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :-
1. The judgment-debtors in an award passed by the District Consumer Forum and upheld in appeal by the State Commission have preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order dated March 10, 2021, the District Forum, in connection with Execution Application No.12 of 2019, modified its previous order dated March 5, 2021, whereby the Inspector-in-Charge (IC) of the Burdwan Police Station was restrained from taking any coercive measure against the judgment-debtors, and the IC was directed to execute and submit E.R. and warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtors.
2. The short backdrop of the case is that the complainant/opposite party no.1 had lodged a complaint before the District forum against the petitioners. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Muchipara, Burdwan, by its award dated August 31, 2018, had allowed the said complaint, bearing Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 2017 on contest with costs, directing the revisionist petitioners to make over delivery of possession of a plot of land by effecting execution and registration of a deed of sale in favour of the complainant after receiving the residue amount of Rs. 2,79,000/-from the complainant within 60 days of the award. In default, the present petitioners were directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 15,21,000/-to the complainant within 60 days from the award, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the case till realisation. The revisionist petitioners were further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/-to the complainant, also within 60 days from the award, failing which the complainant was at liberty to put the entire award into execution as per provisions of law.
3. The revisionist petitioners preferred First Appeal No. A/16/2018 before the Asansol Circuit Bench of the West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. However, the State Commission, vide its judgment of order dated March 27, 2019, dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on contest without any order as to costs.
4. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a challenge before the National Commission.
5. Meanwhile, the opposite party no.1 initiated a proceeding under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act”), thereby giving rise to Execution Application No. 12 of 2019. In the said combined application under Sections 25 and 27 of the C.P. Act, the award holder/opposite party no.1 sought for a direction on the judgment-debtors to refund the amount of Rs. 15,21,000/-with interest and the other amounts as directed by the District Forum; in default to pass an order under Section 25 of the C.P. Act for attachment of the judgment-debtors’ property. For further default, the opposite party no. 1 prayed for an order against the judgment-debtors under Section 27 of the C.P. Act for imprisonment for the period of 3 years and costs under Section 27 against the judgement-debtors for non-compliance of the order.
6. The execution case was being fixed for hearing and, vide order dated October 25, 2019 (at page 123 of the Revisional Application), the District Forum recorded that none appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtors/petitioners and that, on August 26, 2019, the learned counsel had filed a petition undertaking to appear by Vakalatnama on behalf of the judgement-debtors but on the next date, that is, October 25, 2019, no such Vakalatnama had been filed. It was further observed that the judgment-debtors were reluctant to comply with the order of the Forum, for which the Forum was of the opinion that warrant of arrest should be issued against the judgment-debtors. The decree holders filed requisites for executing the warrant of arrest and the office was directed to issue such warrant of arrest.
7. An application under Section 47 of the Code
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act provides the specific procedure for enforcement of orders of the Forum/Commission by recovery of mon....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
Point of Law : President or the senior most member is entitled to conduct proceedings of the National Commission in accordance with the statutory prescription.
The enforcement of orders under the Consumer Protection Act can proceed from a District Forum regardless of modifications made by the National Commission, ensuring continuity and procedural integrity....
The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and no....
(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 unde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
