Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Questioning correctness of the course adopted by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (in short the 'Forum') in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') these petitions have been filed.

2. Finding no response to the notice to K.P. Vijayan, petitioner in O.P. 2284 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'judgment debtor'), the Forum directed issuance of warrant to arrest him which in fact was executed and he was taken into custody. Pursuant to interim directions given by this Court in a petition filed by his relative Venugopal, petitioner in O.P. No. 32834 of 1999, he has been released on bail with certain conditions.

3. Genesis of the dispute is the order dated 22.10.1999. While the judgment debtor maintains that he was present and had moved for an adjournment through counsel before the Forum N.A. Prabhakaran, (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holder') disputes this statement. This factual dispute is really not of much significance in the background of the legal question raised by the judgment debtor. According to him, the directions given by the Forum for issuance of warrant of arrest to secure for the custody of the judgment debtor is violative of the protection given under S.27 of the Act. It is submitted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short'the Code') had to be followed and they have not been followed. Learned counsel appearing for decree holder submitted that the course adopted by the judgment debtor is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of Court and the true intent of S.27 gets diluted by resort to such dilatory methods

4. The purpose for which the Act was enacted is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers. As a part of the objective statutory bodies have been constituted at National level, State level and District level for expeditious disposal of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. At the National level National Commission, at State level State Commission and at District level District Forums are established under S.9 of the Act. S.27 deals with power of the Commissions and Forums to punish a trader or a person against whom a complaint has been made, or the complainant and there is violation to comply with the order passed by the Forum or the Commission as the case may be. S.25 deals with the manner in which the orders of the Forum or the Commission, as the case may be, have to be enforced.

5. Ss.25 and 27 reads as follows:

S.25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.- Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or

(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carried on business or personally works for gain, is situated,

and thereupon, the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution.

5.27. Penalties.- Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made (or the complainant) fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be such trader or person (or complainant) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but w