Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4318
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA
B. Sudheendra Kumar, President, Radhakrishnan K.R., Member
LESLIE JOHN PETER – Appellant
Versus
MISS AGNES LORRAIN CAMOENS – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/35/2024 | Revision Petition No. 35/2024 | S.T.No.41/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Vijayendran, V. K. Prasanth
For the Respondents: George Cheriyan Karippaparambil, S. Reghukumar
The issuance of an arrest warrant by a Consumer Commission is justified when a party willfully fails to comply with a final order for payment despite being granted sufficient opportunities and attempting to procrastinate the proceedings.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the execution of a final order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, which directed the opposite party to pay Rs.11,12,500/- with 12% interest. Despite the order being confirmed by the State Commission and the opposite party having been previously arrested and released on bail, the payment remained outstanding. The District Commission subsequently issued an arrest warrant on 25.01.2024 due to continued non-compliance. The primary issue is whether the District Commission was justified in issuing an arrest warrant against the revision petitioner for non-compliance with the final order. The court reasoned that the petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunities to comply and that the request for further time to sell a flat was merely a tactic for "procrastinating the proceedings." In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the case and the persistent failure of the petitioner to comply with the final monetary award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the petitioner's request for additional time to liquidate assets for payment. (Para 7) |
| 3. justification of the arrest warrant based on the petitioner's history of procrastination and non-compliance. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.35/2024
ORDER DATED : 06.05.2026
(Against the order in S.T.No.41/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
Leslie John Peter, S/o P.P. Xavier, Proprietor, M/s Windy Hills,
Pidiyencheril House, Perumanoor P.O., Pin – 682 015
(by Adv. Rajesh Vijayendran & Adv. V. K. Prasanth)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Agnes Lorrain Camoens, D/o Federick J. Camoens, residing at 10/1389,
Veluvil House, Amaravathy, Fort Kochi – 682 001
(by Adv. George Cheriyan Karippaparambil & Adv. S. Reghukumar)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.41/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short, ‘the District Commission’).
2. The District Commission as per order dated 25.01.2024 issued arrest warrant against the revision petitioner, against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
4. The complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party was initially allowed by the District Commission as per order dated 31.03.2012. Against the said order, the opposite party/revision petitioner filed appeal No.514/2012 before this Commission. The said appeal was allowed, the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the District Commission was set aside and the matter was remitted to the District Commission by this Commission for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, as per order dated 17.08.2012. Thereafter, the District Commission as per order dated 31.01.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.11,12,500/- with 12% interest to the complainant. Against the said order, the opposite party filed appeal No.567/2014, which was dismissed by this Commission as per order dated 31.03.2017 with costs.
5. It is not disputed that the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the District Commission has become final. It is also not disputed that the opposite party did not pay the amount directed to be paid by the District Commission as per order dated 31.01.2014 as confirmed by this Commission. It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that the revision petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2021 and thereafter he was released on bail on the very same date on production of security of Rs.5,000/-. It appears that the revision petitioner sought for adjournment on the pretext of settlement talks on many occasions. Eventually, on 25.08.2023, it was recorded by the District Commission that the matter was not settled. On the very same date, the District Commission issued a warrant which was recalled by the District Commission subsequently as per order dated 13.12.2023 on I.A.No.1040/2023.
6. Thereafter, the decree holder filed I.A.No.40/2024 requesting the District Commission to issue arrest warrant against the revision petitioner for the non-compliance of order dated 31.01.2014. It appears from the proceedings dated 08.01.2024 that the revision petitioner requested further time for payment, which was allowed by the District Commission. Accordingly, the case stood adjourned to 25.01.2024. On 25.01.2024, the revision petitioner filed additional objection to the execution petition. The decree holder submitted before the District Commission that the payment was not received. Since the payment was not made by the revision petitioner as per order dated 31.01.2014, the District Commission iss
