SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Basanti Devi, Member; Tikka Singh, Member.
KOHINOOR CARPETS, PANIPAT & ORS.—Appellant
versus
MR. RAJINDER ARORA.—Respondent
First Appeal No. 11 of 1991—Decided on 22.7.1991

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. R.P. Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

No appeal lies under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - PENALTY IMPOSED BY DISTRICT FORUM - NO APPEAL LIES UNDER SECTION 15 - ORDER UNDER SECTION 27 NOT APPEALABLE - EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS NOT NORMALLY APPEALABLE - EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF DISPUTES UNDER THE ACT - LARGER GOAL OF THE BENEFICENT STATUTE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, who were penalised by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for failing to comply with its order, filed appeals under Section 15 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that no appeal lies under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act.

Issues: Whether an appeal lies under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides for an appeal against an order made by the District Forum, is to be construed in harmony with the other provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 13, 14, 19, 23, and 27. 2. The right of appeal conferred by Section 15 is limited to the substantive orders of the District Forum made under Section 14, and does not extend to every order passed by the District Forum. 3. The imposition of penalty under Section 27 is in the nature of execution proceedings, which are not normally appealable. 4. The Act provides for expeditious disposal of disputes and ensuring the fruits of litigation to the consumer, and allowing an appeal against the orders under Section 27 would defeat this purpose.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed as not being maintainable.

ORDER

S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum, under Section 27 thereof, is the significant and threshold common question in this set of two appeals, i.e., First Appeal Nos. 6 and 11 of 1991. This order will govern both of them.

2. The requisite facts relevant to the issue aforesaid may be noticed with relative brevity from First Appeal No. 11 of 1991 (M/s Kohinoor Carpets, Panipat v. Mr. Rajinder Arora). The complainant Shri Rajinder Arora had instituted the proceedings before the District Forum, Hisar, which culminated in his favour by its order dated 11th April, 1990. Thereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 750/- was awarded to the complainant and the present appellant was directed to either deposit the said amount with the District Forum or pay the same directly to the complainant within one month of the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafer referred to as ‘the Act’) were to be invoked. The appellant Shri Nand Lal failed to comply with the said order within the time specified. At the instance of the complainant Rajinder Arora, the District Forum summoned the appellant to appear before it on the 13th August, 1990, but he yet again did not care to do so. Another direction was issued to him to come present on the 31st January, 1991 but even on this date he neither paid the compensation nor did he put in appearance. The District Forum vide the order under appeal came to the conclusion that the appellant had disobeyed its orders deliberately and proceeded to impose the penalty of one month’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- against the present appellant under Section 27 of the Act. A warrant of arrest was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police for arresting him to undergo the period of imprisonment in the Sub Jail, Panipat. Aggrieved by the said imposition of penalty, the present appeal, purporting to be under Section 15 of the Act, has been preferred. The position is similar in the connected First Appeal No. 6 of 1991 (M/s Narwana Gas Service, Narwana v. Parmodh Kumar).

3. Inevitably, the issue of the very maintainability of the appeals has cropped up at the threshold. Learned Counsel for the appellants were given repeated opportunities for addressing their submissions on this preliminary issue. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Counsel for the one of the appellants, had primarily based himself on the language of Section 15. It was sought to be contended that this provision envisages an appeal by any person who is aggrieved by “an order” of the District Forum and with considerable literality (virtually bordering on the hypertechnicality), it was submitted that this Section visualises no preconditions or limitation, with the result that any other order made by the District Forum would become appealable if a grievance is raised by a party. It was pointed out that the imposition of penalty has been made by a formal order, which is expressly labelled as such and is dated 31st January, 1991. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, this order of imposition of penalty was within the wide-ranging ambit of Section 15. Some tenuous reliance was sought to be placed on Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786, with particular emphasis on paras 79 and 119 of the said judgment. Mr. R.P. Yadav, Advocate, on the other hand, had placed reliance on Kanshi Ram v. Siri Ram and another, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 642.

4. At the very outset one must notice that the question herein is not entirely free from difficulty and as yet appears to be res integra. In any case, in spite of repeated opportunities given to the learned Counsel, no judgment covering the issue on all fours could be cited before us. Inevitably, the matter has, therefore, to be examined on the larger scheme and lan

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top