Back
C. S. DIAS
Shiny Antony Rauf – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government – Respondent
JUDGMENT
By Ext.P1 order, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (‘District Commission’, in short) had allowed the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Old Act’). Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (‘State Commission’, for brevity). The State Commission has admitted the appeal and issued notice to the 3rd respondent. As there is no provision in the Act to stay the operation and execution of the order, the petitioner is precluded from filing such an application. However, the 3rd respondent has filed an execution application before the District Commission to execute the Ext.P1 order. On receipt of the summons in the execution application, the petitioner appeared through counsel and sought time to file her objections. Yet, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file an objection, the District Commission has issued Ext.P7 non-bailable warrant of arrest. Ext.P7 is ex -facie illegal and erroneous. Hence, the writ petition.
2. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 03.12.2
Inherent Power – The Commissions have the inherent power to stay the operation of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appeal is duly filed after depositing the statutory amount.
The inherent power of the State Commission allows it to stay execution of orders, despite the absence of explicit provisions in the Consumer Protection Acts, provided statutory conditions are met.
“When a conditional stay is passed, it is for the applicant to fulfil the conditions or not.”
(1) Judgment Debtors did not comply with the order of the State Commission and failed to personally appear before the State Commission, except once.(2) Judgment Debtors repeatedly approached this Com....
Review Power under Section 50 – The State Commission possesses the statutory authority to review its own orders if there is an “error apparent on the face of the record.” This power can be exercised ....
Condonation of delay by imposition of costs justified.
Execution of consumer complaint orders can proceed despite pending appeals if no stay is granted, emphasizing compliance with prior orders.
(1) Jurisdictional Excess – The NCDRC observed that the District Commission prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory direction for payment in an application filed by the consumer ....
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
