JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

1.      This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 16.02.2019, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he having failed to comply with the order of the State Commission dated 30.01.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No.295/2011.  It is informed that pursuant to the order passed by the State Commission the Appellant is in custody in Amaravati jail for last more than 10 months.

2.      The procedure to be followed by a Consumer Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came for consideration by Three Members Bench of this Commission in EA No.80/2019 in Consumer Complaint No.14/2015 (Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. vs. Unitech Ltd. & Anr.), and the following view was taken:

27.    One of the questions which came up for consideration during the course of hearing was with respect to the procedure which a Consumer Forum is required to follow in the proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the CP Act.  It was contended on behalf of some of the complainants that the proceedings under Section 27 are akin to the proceedings under Section 39 Rule 2A of the Cr. PC or the proceedings under Contempt of Court Act or Section 51 read with Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  A reference in this regard was made to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society & Ors. (2003) SCC 412:

          “58. Furthermore, Section 27 of the Act also confers an additional power upon the Forum and the Commission to execute its order. The said provision is akin to Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure or the provisions of the Contempt of Courts, Act or Section 51 read with Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 25 should be read in conjunction with Section 27. A Parliamentary statute indisputably can create a tribunal and might say that non-compliance of its order would be punishable by way of imprisonment or fine, which can be in addition to any other mode of recovery.

Reliance was also placed upon the following view taken by Allahabad High Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2003 (4) AWC 3078:

“20. A perusal of Section 27 clearly shows that proceedings therein are in the nature of proceedings for civil contempt, and their object is to compel obedience of the orders of the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission.”

“22.   ………No doubt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Chapter 35E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the procedure for contempt of court proceedings in the Allahabad High Court has been prescribed, but in our opinion, this procedure need not be followed by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission in proceedings under Section 27. Hence, the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission needs only to follow the rules of natural justice in respect of such proceedings.”

28.    In Kamlesh Aggarwal Vs. Narain Singh Dabbas & Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 661, the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court filed a consumer complaint, which was allowed by the District Forum.  Since the order passed by the District Forum was not complied, he filed an execution petition, seeking punishment of the respondents under Section 25