Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—District Forum, Amritsar on July 29,1997 finally disposed of the complaint filed by M/ s. Pee Kay Synthetics against M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Jalandhar City Branch and M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, New Delhi headquarter and M/s. Pal Peugeot, Mumbai, manufacturer of the car. Direction was given to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, M/s. Delhi Automobiles to pay Rs. 4,40,524/- with 15% per annum interest from August 4,19% fill payment within two months from the date of communication of the order. The aforesaid order having not been complied with, an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed by the complainant. Certain objections were raised by M/s. Delhi Automobiles relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to pass the order aforesaid as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. Another objection raised was non-joinder of the manufacturer of the car as a party and finally that Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act could not be resorted to before proceedings under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. These objections having been dismissed, the District Forum passed the impugned order to the following effect on June 30,1998 :

“Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in pleas taken by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. Objection petition filed in the shape of reply is, therefore, dismissed. Issue warrant of conviction and S.S.P., Jalandhar and Commissioner of Delhi Police be directed to comply with the order under intimation to this Forum.”

2. The present revision has been filed by M/s. Delhi Automobiles challenging order of the District Forum aforesaid. The preliminary objections as raised in the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act regarding jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint were taken before the District Forum in the complaint. No appeal against the aforesaid order dated July 29, 1997 was filed. That being the position, the District Forum was justified in observing in the impugned order that such questions could not be raised again. We are conscious of the fact that by consent of the parties jurisdiction could not be bestowed on the Fora if inherently it lacks and such question of jurisdiction could be raised even at the stage of execution of the final order. But position in the present case is entirely different. Such objections were taken but the matter was not agitated in the appeal. Now in the execution proceedings such an objection cannot be allowed to be raised.

3. During arguments, it was suggested on behalf of the complainant that since the vehicle was to be delivered at Amritsar, hence part of cause of action was to accrue at Amritsar and District Forum, Amritsar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No further comment in this respect is being made at this stage on merits.

4. Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Marine Container Services South Private Limited v. Go Go Garments, 1998 (I) CPC 695, and urged that the petitioner could take advantage of the provision of Section 230 of the Contract Act in the present proceedings viz-a-viz the manufacturer of the vehicle. However, we are of the opinion that such a point can not be urged in execution proceedings.

5. The case deserves to be remanded on another point. The operative portion of the order as reproduced above does not appear to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under :

“27. Penalties—

Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made (or the complainant) fails or omit to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person (or complainant) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three