The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of seeking compliance with the orders passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — This appeal is filed against the order of District Forum, Yavatmal dated 1.10.1991 passed in Complaint No. 14/91. The present appeal is arising out of the proceeding of imposing the penalty on appellant under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The original complaint of Shri V.P. Jawalekar was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 19.1.1991 passed in Complaint No. 114/91 directing the appellant M/s. Rajani Gas Company, Yavatmal to provide a gas connection to complainant Shri V.P. Jawalekar. It is the grievance of complainant that the order dated 19.1.1991 has not been complied with by the present appellant, inasmuch as no gas connection is supplied to the complainant. The appellant opposed the application on the ground that order dated 19.1.1991 was not legal. The District Forum, Yavatmal found that the present appellant was persistently defying the orders of District Forum and the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the appellant u/Sec. 27 of the C.P. Act.

2. We have heard Shri Rane, Advocate for the appellant. The respondent was absent.

3. Shri Rane submitted that the first order dated 19.1.1991 passed by the District Forum in C.No. 114/91 was without jurisdiction. Therefore, his client is not obliged to obey that order. We are not impressed by this argument of Shri Rane for the simple reason that if the said order dated 19.1.91 was illegal then it was open for the present appellant to challenge that order in Appeal before this Commission. Admittedly the same order dated 19.1.91 has not been challenged by the appellant. In our view, that order has become final by virtue of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. Under the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, every order of a District Forum shall be final if no appeal has been preferred against such order. In the instant case, in our view, the order passed in Complaint No. 114/91 dated 19.1.91 having become final, it is not open to the appellant to make grievance about its legality of otherwise.

4. We find from the observation of the District Forum that the appellant has been persistantly defying the orders of the District Forum and therefore, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed. After going through the records of the District Forum and after hearing the arguments of appellant, we find no substance in this appeal and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act his been introduced with a view to punish these traders and persons against whom a complaint is made fail or omit to comply with any order passed by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission. The purpose behind the provisions contained u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act is to seek compliance of the orders passed by the District Forum. We, therefore, find that this is a fit case in which the District Forum, Yavaimal has taken correct view to impose the penalty as there is flagrant violation of the order of the District Forum, Yavatmal by the appellant. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.