The Executing Forum can only attach the property of the judgment debtor or impose punishment as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance with a court order. It cannot award damages or issue a warrant of arrest.

ORDER

M.K. Basu, President - This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the Birbhum District Consumer Forum in its Execution Case No. Bir/8/Ex./2004 arises out of the original C.F. Case No. 64/99. Under this order the Forum, consisting of 2 non-judicial members, has directed the O.P. judgment debtors (the present appellant to give connection to S.T.W. No. 1650 of the complainant - Decree Holder on or before 16.1.2006 failing which the judgment debtors would be liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000 to each of the decree holders. The Forum further directed that the said amount of damages would be deducted from the salaries of the officers who were responsible for non-compliance of the order and in such an event the decree holder would be at liberty to approach the Court for issuing warrant of arrest against the O.Ps. for non-compliance of Court's order. The Forum then fixed a date viz., 20.1.2006 for report from the decree holders.

2. Being aggrieved by this order of the Executing Forum the judgment debtors have preferred the present appeal challenging that order is erroneous, illegal and improper.

3. In the main case out of which this execution case arose, the Trial Forum passed its order dated 13.12.1999 allowing the complaint and directing the O.Ps. (the present judgment Debtors) to give electric connection in the S.T.W. of the petitioner immediately not exceeding a month from the date of the order. But the O.Ps. did not care to comply with this order of the Forum. The complainant then filed the execution case in which the afore-mentioned order has been passed. The judgment debtors have now challenged that order of the Executing Forum in the present appeal. It should be borne in mind at the very outset that the main order of the Trial Forum dated 13.12.1999 remains unchallenged and in force and, therefore, the appellants herein have no escape from making compliance of that original order. They cannot in this appeal challenge that main order of the Trial Forum. Keeping this position in view, let us see how far this appeal has got any merit.

4. Under the impugned order of the Executing Forum the damages of Rs. 10,000 have been imposed in case the judgment debtors failed to give effect to the original order of the Trial Forum dated 13.12.1999. This order has been challenged on the ground that the Executing Forum has no authority or scope to award such damages. This contention of the appellant before us cannot be discarded or brushed aside. It is a universally accepted principle that an Executing Court cannot go behind a decree. It is to enforce a decree or an order of the Trial Court which is like a post office and it has no discretion to depart from or add to the substantive part of the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court did not impose any such damages. It simply directed the O.Ps. to give connection in the S.T.W. of the complainant. The Executing Forum was to confine itself within this frame-work of the order. When the judgment debtors did not comply with such order then the Executing Forum was to exercise its power as given either under Section 25 or Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Under Section 25 property of the judgment debtor is to be attached in order to give relief to the decree holder and under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act punishment is to be inflicted upon the judgment debtor if he fails to carry out the impugned order. Therefore, it was the duty of the Executing Forum to proceed under any of these two sections in case of failure of the judgment debtors to carry out the order. It could not pass an order awarding damages in such fashion. It could after drawing a proceeding under Section 27 impose fine or sentence the judgment debtor to imprisonment. But at any rate imposition of damages of Rs. 10,000 is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. From that point of view this part of the order of the Forum certainly cannot be held to be legal. Simila