The Consumer Protection Act provides a different procedure for adjudicating complaints and enforcing orders, distinct from the Civil Procedure Code. It emphasizes the quasi-judicial nature of consumer fora and the penalties for non-compliance under Section 27.

ORDER

Justice D. Appa Rao, President (Oral)- This is a petition filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection against respondents to sentence them with imprisonment as well as impose fine for non-compliance of order of this Commission in C.D. 80/1997 dated 21.4.2006.

2. It is averred in the petition that he filed a complaint against the respondents pertaining to an agreement of sale dated 30.6.1992, for compensation and damages. By order dated 23.11.2001 this Commission directed the respondents to pay Rs. 6 lakh with interest @ 18% p.a., from 30.6.1992 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by the said order R2 to R6 preferred F.A. No. 36/2002 before the National Commission which in turn dismissed it by order dated 12.4.2002. Thus the orders passed against R2 to R6 are confirmed. R1 preferred F.A. 806/2003 before the National Commission and the same was remanded for fresh consideration. on merits against R1 only. By order dated 21.4.2006 this Commission after considering the evidence placed on record, allowed the complaint directing R1 also to refund Rs. 6 lakh with interest @ 18% p.a., from 30.6.1992 till the date of payment by imposing joint and several liability. R1 did not prefer any appeal and the said order has become final. The said orders were not complied by any of the respondents. Therefore the petition is filed to punish the respondents by way of imprisonment and fine for non-compliance of the order.

3. When show cause notice was issued, R1 filed counter raising several pleas which he had already taken in the main case and that he did not enter into any agreement, and that for the money financed, he gave blank forms without filling up the spaces which were cleverly filled up by the complainant. He also took two blank agreements and five blank cheques. The matter was not compromised in O.S. No. 1460/1992 on the file of IInd Additional Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The allegation that he had purchased the property at Rs. 200 per s.ft. is all misleading. In fact he had paid interest from July, 1992 to November, 1992. The complainant having received Rs. 7.20 lakh wanted to create problems in order to mislead his family members through his brother-in-law who happened to be a friend of complainant's father-in-law. He did not sell the flat with any dishonest intention. The amount given by the complainant was total used and paid to R2 to R6 and rest of the amount for completion of the venture Shirdi Apartments. Ex. A2 is a fabricated document. The complainant was not a consumer, and therefore prayed that E.A. be dismissed.

4. R2 to R6 equally resisted the case. They alleged that they entered into a development agreement with R1 proprietor of M/s. Vasavi constructions wherein both of them agreed to share at 60% : 40% basis in the constructed area. Their share of 40% was not given by R1. They did not join the alleged agreement dated 30.6.1992 nor received any consideration. Even in P.P. No. 1/2002 this Commission has observed by its final order dated 26.4.2006 that the complainant had made payments to R1 and he in turn had failed to complete the construction and hand over the flats. No deficiency in service was attributed against them. They have nothing to do with the transaction. The Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the instant case. Since they were no way concerned, E.A. is liable to be dismissed.

5. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the complaint is entitled to execute the order of this Commission

(ii) Whether this Commission can go behind the order and adjudicate the matter

6. Admittedly R1 a developer entered into an agreement dated 30.11.1988 with R2 to R6 who are the owners for purchase of 1200 sq.yds. wherein they agreed to construct the flats. The complainant by virtue of agreement dated 1.6.1992 purchased two flats by paying consideration by way of banker's cheque. After enquiring into the matter this Commission by order dated 23.11.2001 directed the R1 to R6 to re