IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) ‘Appeal’ against an Order passed under section 27 - ‘appeal’ against an Order passed under section 27 by the District Commission does lie before the State Commission under section 27A.
(2) Revision Jurisdiction - the revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) of the Act 1986 is essentially in relation to a ‘consumer dispute’; ‘revision’ under section 17(1)(b) does not lie before the State Commission apropos an Order passed in execution proceedings, be they under section 25(3) or under section 27 (or under section 27A).).

ORDER

These revision petitions (09 nos.) have been filed before this Commission under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 07.04.2017 of the State Commission in revision petitions no. 46 to no. 56 of 2014 and no. 06 to no. 11 of 2015 arising out of the common Orders dated 18.09.2014 and dated 26.12.2014 of the District Commission in execution petitions no. 117, no. 118, no. 120, no. 122 to no. 124, no. 36, no. 19, no. 115, no. 116, no. 119, no. 18, no. 43, no. 121 and no. 196 of 2008 and no. 171 and no. 172 of 2013.

2. Learned proxy counsel present on behalf of the revisionists requests for an adjournment, submitting that the learned counsel is not available. Learned counsel for the respondent is present, and submits that he has come from Bangaluru for the final hearing.

3. These revisions are pending since 2017. It is deemed appropriate to dispose them on the basis of the record and after hearing the counsel present i.e. the learned counsel for the respondent. The request for adjournment made by the learned proxy counsel on behalf of the revisionists is politely declined.

4. The record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 07.04.2017 of the State Commission and the petitions, has been perused. Learned counsel for the respondent has been heard.

5. It is readily apparent that the District Commission’s Orders dated 18.09.2014 and dated 26.12.2014 have very obviously been passed in execution proceedings, and not passed in adjudication of a ‘consumer dispute’ per se as finds mention in the Act 1986.

Execution proceedings under section 25(3) or section 27 of the Act 1986 are distinctively different from adjudication of a ‘consumer dispute’, they are separate independent proceedings.

Jurisdiction of the State Commission for ‘revision’ under section 17(1)(b) is in relation to a ‘consumer dispute’. It does not extend to execution proceedings under section 25(3) or section 27 (which were not part of the original statute as legislated in 1986 but were incorporated subsequently through amendments).

Remedy against an Order passed by the District Commission in execution proceedings, for ‘Enforcement’ under section 25(3) or for ‘Penalties’ under section 27, in execution of an Order which has attained finality within the meaning of section 24 (decree), in the separate independent execution proceedings, does not lie before the State Commission in revision under section 17(1)(b) of the Act 1986.

6. It is however seen that the State Commission vide its impugned Order of 07.04.2017, which it has passed under section 17(1)(b), has allowed the revision petitions after looking into the merits of the matter. The correct legal position was that ‘revision’ under section 17(1)(b) did not lie before the State Commission. Thus the State Commission, in entering into and adjudicating on merits, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. The State Commission ought to have dismissed the revision petitions as being not maintainable.

7. It may be added, for holistic appreciation, that ‘appeal’ against an Order passed under section 27 by the District Commission does lie before the State Commission under section 27A, but the Orders herein of the District Commission were not passed for ‘Penalties’ under section 27 and as such ‘appeal’ thereagainst did not lie before the State Commission under section 27A either.

As already stated the sole point in the instant matter herein which deserves emphasis is that the revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) of the Act 1986 is essentially in relation to a ‘consumer dispute’; ‘revision’ under section 17(1)(b) does not lie before the State Commission apropos an Order passed in execution proceedings, be they under section 25(3) or under section 27 (or under section 27A).)

8. It is thus palpably patent that the State Commission has erred in deciding the revision petitions preferred before it under section 17(1)(b) on merits when it ought to have dismissed them on mai