Interlocutory orders of the District Consumer Commission are not appealable unless they decide party rights.

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants u/sec.27A of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 r/w. Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 against the order dated 26/04/2024 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Central Mumbai in Execution Application no.EA/11/40.

2. The appellants have contended in the appeal that the present execution application is filed by the accused in the original Execution Application no. EA/11/40, challenging the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Central Mumbai, dated 26/04/2024, thereby partly allowing the application of the Accused but failed to consider the right of the Accused to conduct oval cross of the respondent on the entire issue.

3. It is further contended that it is well settled law that no cross-examination can be conducted by interrogatories. In spite of well settled law, the Ld.District Consumer Commission, forced the Accused to file interrogatories, which were filed by the Accused in English language and the reply to the said interrogatories in English and put her thumb on the same without knowing the answers given. The appellants submitted that no such procedure is known to the criminal jurisprudence. Hence, the Accused has filed an application for recalling the witness for cross examination orally. The Ld.District Consumer Commission passed an order by allowing the application partly, wherein the present appellant is allowed to take the cross examination to the extent of verification clauses. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Learned advocate for the appellants on admission of the appeal. The Commission has noted that the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Central Mumbai in Execution Application no.EA/11/40 is interlocutory in nature. The appellants are claiming that the impugned order may be set aside and the appellants may be allowed to take cross-examination of the respondent on entire evidence without any restrictions.

5. We perused section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986. We reproduce the same herein below:-

27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27 –

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from –

(a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission; (b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and (c) the order made by the National Commission to the supreme Court.

(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a Sate Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission: Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.

6. Section 27 -A has been brought against the order u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986. Therefore, we are supposed to go through section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986. We reproduce the same herein below:-

27. Penalties.—

(1)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 exte