Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
Jagannatha Prasad @ Reghu – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By the Secretary To Government, Revenue Department and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 20153 OF 2021
Decided On : 30-09-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 27 25 and 22D - Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - rule (2) of Rule 15A (3) - Forum granting compensation - Petitioner was one of opposite parties in a Consumer Complaint instituted by respondent before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, as C.C. - Complaint was allowed by Forum granting compensation to respondents, and decision of Forum was affirmed in appeal by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a modification in favour of petitioner. petitioner as also respondents challenged decision of State Commission before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and in terms of order, National Commission affirmed decisions of Forum and State Commission with a modification in favour of respondents - Complainants thereupon instituted proceedings before Forum for enforcement of decision of Forum and said proceedings are pending. In meanwhile, at instance of respondents \Forum issued a notice to petitioner directing him to show cause why penalty in terms of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 \shall not be imposed on him. is the notice issued to petitioner in regard. \notice is under challenge in proceedings on ground that it is one issued without jurisdiction –
Finding of the court : While Sub-section (3) of Section 25 provides that where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, as case may be, person entitled to amount may make an application to District Forum, State Commission or National Commission as case may be, and such District Forum or State Commission or National Commission may issue a certificate for said amount to Collector of district and Collector shall proceed to recover amount in same manner as arrears of land revenue, Section 27 does not mention about Forum where proceedings provided for therein is to be initiated. Section 27 only provides that where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by District Forum, State Commission or National Commission as case may be, such a trader or person or complainant shall be punishable. As noted, the contention of the petitioner is that insofar as the order of the District Forum was modified in revision by the National Commission, proceedings under Section 27 can be initiated only by National Commission. A reading of Section 27 of Act would show that intention of legislature is that a person who fails or omits to comply with an order passed by any of Forums constituted under Act shall be punished - .Court provision in sub-section (3) of Section 25 is understood in aforesaid background, it can be seen that power is conferred on Forum, whose order is omitted or failed to be complied with, to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of Act, notwithstanding whether order has been modified in appeal or revision, once it has become final. Needless to say, contention aforesaid of learned counsel for petitioner is also liable to be rejected and Court –
Result : writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner was one of the opposite parties in a Consumer Complaint instituted by respondents 4 and 5 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kottayam as C.C.No.1055 of 1998. The complaint was allowed by the Forum granting compensation to respondents 4 and 5, and the decision of the Forum was affirmed in appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a modification in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner as also respondents 4 and 5 challenged the decision of the State Commission before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and in terms of Ext.P1 order, the National Commission affirmed the decisions of the Forum and the State Commission with a modification in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. The complainants thereupon instituted proceedings before the Forum for enforcement of the decision of the Forum and the said proceedings are pending. In the meanwhile, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, the Forum issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause why penalty in terms of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) shall not be imposed on him. Ext.P10 is the notice issued to the petitioner in this regard. Ext.P10 notice is under challenge in this proceedings on the ground that it is one issued without jurisdiction.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions, of which the first one was that in the light of sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act, insofar as the order, the non compliance of which is alleged, is an order of the National Commission, proceedings under Section 27 of the Act can be initiated in respect of the same only by the National Commission. The second contention was that in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (the Rules), Ext.P1 order ought to have been signed either by the President or the senior-most member of the National Commission and the members of the National Commission who conducted the proceeding, and insofar as Ext.P1 order is not signed either by the President or the senior-most member of the Commission, the proceedings initiated in respect of the same under Section 27 of the Act is without jurisdiction.
4. True, Ext.P1 order was signed only by the two members of the National Commission who conducted the proceeding. Rule 15A of the Rules reads thus :
(1) Every proceeding of the National Commission shall be conducted by the President or the senior-most member and at least two members thereof sitting together except when a bench is constituted by the President of the National Commission with one or more members as he may deem fit.
Provided that one member or members for any reason are unable to conduct proceedings till it is completed, the President or the senior-most member, as provided in section 22D of the Act, shall conduct such proceedings from the state at which it was last heard by the previous member.
(2) Every order made by the National Commission shall be signed by the President or the senior-most member as provided under section 22D and at least two members who conducted the proceeding and if there is any difference of opinion among themselves, the opinion of majority shall be the order of the National Commission:
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President or the senior-most member as provided under section 22D and three members thereof and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the National Commission.
Of course, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15A that every order made by the National Commission shall be signed by the President or the sen
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
