KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.276/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:26.07.2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.229/2013 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram order dated : 25.03.2015)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT

The President

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Public Service Society,

Valiyottukonam, Perukavu.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 573

(By Adv.Sri.C.S.Rajmohan)

Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.R.Radhamma,

Kuzhivila Puthen veedu,

Kurisumuttom,

Peyad.P.O

2.The Secretary,

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Public Service Society,

Valiyottukonam, Perukavu.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 573

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        This is an appeal filed Under Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The appeal is filed by the first judgment debtor in EA.No.45/2004, that is, the first opposite party in CC.No.229/2013 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal is directed against the warrant of arrest issued by the consumer forum in execution of its order directing arrest of the appellant and production before the forum dated 25.03.2015. It is seen from the warrant issued that notice was issued to the appellant on 12.01.2015 to show cause why he shall not be punished Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. But he failed to appear in response to the show cause notice.

        2.     The short question that arises for consideration is whether an appeal would lie Under Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act challenging such an order. If the answer is in the affirmative only, the further question whether the forum executing its order was justified in issuing such an order would arise. In order to decide the first question, the provisions in Sections 27 and 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act are relevant. As per Section 27 failure or omission to comply with the order of a consumer forum, state commission etc itself is sufficient to impose punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs.2000/- but which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or with both.  Under Section 27 Clause (2) the District forums, the state Commission or the National Commission are vested with the power of a judicial magistrate of first class for trial of the offences under the Consumer Protection Act. Clause (3) of Section 27 makes it clear that the offences under the Consumer of Protection Act may be tried summarily.

        3.     So it is obvious that mere failure or omission to comply with the order amounts to commission of offence under the Act. It is the discretion of the forum concerned to try the offence summarily or if the offence, warrants, imposition of higher punishment try the offence as a summons case which may be the feasible course in most cases.

4.     Section 27 A provides for appeal against order passed under section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The appeal naturally is to the higher forum but the pertinent question is whether the order mentioned in Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act connotes any order or a final order. The warrant issued by the consumer forum was for arrest and production of the accused before it to enable trial of the offence committed by him in accordance with law. Obviously, this is not a final order Once he is arrested and brought before the consumer forum as he has already failed to appear before the forum voluntarily to answer the charges against him, he would be tried in accordance with law and appropriate punishment would be imposed. The order imposing punishment after trial would be the final order. Under Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act it is not every order that is made appealable but final order affecting the rights and liberties of the judgment debtor. By an order to arrest and