Execution of consumer complaint orders can proceed despite pending appeals if no stay is granted, emphasizing compliance with prior orders.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present Special Civil Application has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-

“A. Be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. The Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to consider that the judgment/order of the Ld. Gujarat State Commission, Ahmedabad in AEA No. 15/2024 dated 22/10/2024 (Annexure A) is illegal, wrong and be further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment/order and/or modify the same considering the merits of the case.

C. The Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to dismiss the judgment/order in Execution Petition No.37/2024 dated 02/07/2024 of the Ld. Bharuch District Consumer Redressal Commission (Annexure B) and thereby allowing the application of the petitioner to dismiss the said execution petition.

D. As an ad-interim ex part relief, the Hon’ble Court may stay the judgment/order of the Ld. Gujarat State Commission, Ahmedabad in AEA No. 15/2024 dated 22/10/2024 (Annexure A) and the judgment/order in Execution Petition No. 35/2024 dated 02/07/2024 of the Ld. Bharuch District Consumer Redressal Commission (Annexure B) until final adjudication of the present petition.

E. Be pleased to pass such other and further awards may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice.”

3. The brief facts in the present case are that the respondent complainant had filed the consumer complaint No.24/2015 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which came to be decided in favour of the complainant by the order dated 27.10.2016 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- with interest/cost. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed an Appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The said Appeal came to be filed after a long delay along with the Delay Condonation Application. The State Consumer Commission dismissed the said Delay Condonation Application being MA No.47/2022 as no sufficient cause was made out. That thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Revision Application before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being R P No.1259/2022 and the same is pending adjudication. In the meantime, the complainant filed an Execution Petition before the District Consumer Redressal Commission being EA No.35/2024 and the same came to be allowed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission. That thereafter, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad being AEA No.15/2024. The State Consumer Commission, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the AEA No.15/2024 by the impugned order dated 22.10.2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the State Consumer Commission as well as District Consumer Commission are erroneous and contrary to law. He submits that the complainant filed the Execution Petition simultaneously under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. He submits that the complainant cannot ride two horses and seeks both the reliefs at the same time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken a preliminary objection with respect to simultaneous reliefs sought under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. He submits that by the pursis, the Advocate for the complainant did not press the prayer under Section 25 of the Act and pressed for the prayer under Section 27 of the Act. The learned counsel submits that the Execution Petition was filed on an affidavit, whereas the prayer was not pressed by the Advocate for the complainant by filing a pursis, which is not in accordance with law. He submits that the pleadings cannot be amended by pursis filed by the Advocate for the complainant. He submits that the said submission has not been considered properly by the State Cons