Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Ranjit Kumar Sarkar —Appellant
versus
Pew Saha and Ors. —Respondents
Appeal Execution No.93 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 26/06/2018 in Complaint No. 582/2017 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 1.7.2019
For the Appellant:Mr. Uday Chandra Jha and Mr. Ved Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.3 and 4:Mr. Shajeeb Biswas, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Section 27(1) of the Act 1986 does not distinguish between an interim Order or a ‘final Order’, it speaks of “any order”.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Sections - 25(3) ,27(1),27A - Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 8(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 262(2) - Execution proceedings of interim Order - Failure or omission to comply with an interim order of the State Commission - Section 27(1) of the Act 1986 does not distinguish between an interim Order or a ‘final Order’, it speaks of “any order” - Failure or omission to comply with interim order attracts the ‘penalties’ under section 27(1) - State Commission has the power of a judicial magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences - Held that, The complaint made by the complainant before the State Commission alleging failure and omission to comply with the interim Order of the State Commission shall be treated as a complaint as per its meaning contained in section 27 of the Act 1986. [Para -8, 9, 10, 15 and 19]
Result: Execution Application disposed of.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Member—This appeal (execution) has been filed under section 27A of the Act 1986 against the Order dated 26.06.2018 of the State Commission passed on I.A. No. 398 of 2018 in C.C. No. 582 of 2017.
2. On 02.05.2019, after hearing arguments of the learned counsel present, and after perusing the material on record, we had passed the following Order
Dated 02-05-2019
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the execution applicant, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 and learned counsel for respondents no. 3 & 4. Perused the material on record.
The appeal is partly allowed. The complaint made by the complainant before the State Commission alleging failure and omission to comply with the interim Order of the State Commission shall be treated as a complaint as per its meaning contained in section 27 of the Act 1986. The State Commission shall proceed with it as per the law in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Cr. P. C. for trial of summons – cases.
Reasoned judgment to follow.
Meanwhile, till four weeks from the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment, the status quo as obtaining on date (i.e. as on 02.05.2019) on the subject property shall be maintained by all parties and persons concerned. The principal onus of informing about this Order to all persons concerned shall be on the respondents no. 1 & 2 as well as on respondents no. 3 & 4.
And let the Order be ‘dasti’ in addition.
3. We are giving our reasons hereinafter.
4. For appreciation of the issues raised in the appeal (execution), we may first quote the State Commission’s impugned Order in its entirety
Dated 26 Jun 2018
ORDER
Order No. 07
Both the parties are represented through their Ld. Advocates. In accordance with the previous order, the record is taken up for disposal of the application filed by the complainant being IA3982018 whereby the complainant has made following prayers, viz.- (a) an order may be passed directing the opposite parties to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for violation of the order dated August 16, 2017 passed by this Hon’ble Commission; (b) an appropriate order may be passed by the Hon’ble Commission drawing up the proceeding against the opposite parties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for violation of the order dated August 16, 2017 passed by this Hon’ble Commission an appropriate order of sentence may be passed in terms of law; (c) an order may be passed directing taking over of the possession of the flat and also the garage mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ of the instant application by the appropriate authority of the state being of the authorities of the local police station being Khardah Police Station or by any other authority or by Special Officer appointed by this Hon’ble Commission empowering him her to take possession of the properties being the flat and garage as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ with or without police help forthwith; (d) an interim order may be passed in terms of prayer ‘c’ above; (e) any other or further orderorders may be passed as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.
On perusal of materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the applicant herein being complainant lodged the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the proprietress of a sole proprietorship firm namely, ‘Basanti Enterprise’ (opposite party no. 1), her husband (opposite party no. 2) and the landowners (opposite party nos. 3 & 4) on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them for non-delivery of possession, non-execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance in respect of flat measuring about 1200 sq. ft. super built-up area on the 3rd Floor and one garage space measuring about 220 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor at Municipal Hold
