IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of award – Section 71 and Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are mutually exclusive and constitute independent remedies – Decree holder can avail any of them at his will.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein has assailed order dated 04.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission West Bengal, (hereinafter called as Commission) in connection with an execution proceeding arising out of consumer complaint case. In the order dated 04.09.2025., the said commission refused to place reliance on the medical documents, as it does not bear LTI of the patient/petitioner and therefore issued fresh warrant of arrest against the petitioner fixing 3rd November, 2025 for further order.

2. On 3rd November, 2025 the judgment debtor No.2/petitioner herein was brought under arrest by the strength of aforesaid warrant of arrest and the commission observed as follows:—

“It appears that the execution and registration of deed of conveyance has not been executed. Furthermore, the matter of payment for compensation, cost and refund money are yet to be done.

The Ld. Advocate for the custody accused urged for enlarging him on bail but we think if the J. Dr. is enlarged on bail, it would frustrate the purpose of execution application.

Having such observation, the bail prayer is rejected. The J. Dr. be remanded to presidency Central Correctional Home. The Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home is to take charge of the J. Dr. namely Sri Malay Bose from the said constable and to provide safety and security of the said J. Dr. and to provide necessary medical treatment to him till further order and to arrange for production of the said J. Dr. before this Commission on the date so fixed.

At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the J. Dr. prays for 10 days time.

Prayer is considered and allowed.

The superintendent, presidency Correctional Home is directed to produce Sri Malay Bose on 13.11.2025 at 10.30 A.M. for payment and compliance.”

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders Mr. Sandipan Ganguly learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the basis of a complaint Hon’ble commission passed an exparte order on 29th May, 2019 in favour of the complainant by directing interalia the petitioner to hand over the flat in habitable condition to the complainant and to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant and to refund Rs.22,45,000/- plus Rs 1,55,410/- with 12% interest and to provide completion certificate newly constructed building along with compensation cost.

4. The opposite party no.2, herein filed execution application to execute the said order. In the meantime the commission issued the warrant of arrest against the petitioner placing no reliance upon petitioner’s medical documents vide aforesaid impugned order dated 04.09.2025 and on 03.11.2025 when the petitioner was brought under arrest by dint of warrant of arrest issued vide order dated 04.09.2025, the bail prayer of petitioner was rejected and he has been remanded to judicial custody for a period of 10 days and the Superintended Presidency Correctional Home has been directed to produce the petitioner on 13.11.2025 at 10.30 a.m. for payment and compliance.

5. Mr. Ganguly contended that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and his movement is completely restricted by his doctor and is bed-ridden. Mr. Ganguly argued that by no means the commission can take recourse to section 72 to take a short cut and coercive method for execution of its order and therefore, passing of such order is palpably illegal. The commission failed to appreciate that warrant of arrest cannot be issued for enforcement of its order. The commission though has the authority to issue warrant for detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison in accordance with the provision under the Code of Civil Procedure but it cannot issue warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor following Part B of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly he prayed for setting aside the order and prays for release of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Srijit Chakraborty learned Counsel appearing on beha