Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Insofar as the facts and circumstances of Appeals bearing Nos. A/223/2019, A/224/2019 are identical, both these Appeals are disposed of through this common order.

The case of the Appellant, in short, is that, without passing an order u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was highly improper/illogical/illegal on the part of the Ld. District Forum to pass the impugned order u/s 27 of the Act as in doing so, the right of the Appellant has been severally prejudiced.  Accordingly, these Appeals are preferred for reversal of the said orders.

We have heard the submission advanced on behalf of the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, who were present at the time of hearing.  We have also gone through the material on record.

It appears from the record that vide Order dated 26-11-2013, the complaint cases were decreed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 against which Appeals were preferred before this Commission.  Following contested hearing, those Appeals were dismissed vide Order dated 10-08-2018 and challenging such decision, Revision petition was filed before the Hon’ble National Commission. Vide its Order dated 29-11-2018, the Hon’ble Commission dismissed the same against which the Appellant reportedly filed Review petitions.

It also bears specifically mentioned here that the ‘completion certificate’ has not yet been handed over to the Respondent No. 1. Thus, while the Appellant is yet to discharge its liability in terms of the order of the Ld. District Forum fully, one wonders, how could the Appellant dispute the impugned order.

It is contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that as because the award passed in the complaint case is already paid and more so, review petition against the order of the Hon’ble Commission is pending, it was not proper to take such drastic step against it at this stage. 

In this regard, it is our considered opinion that the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission cannot be seen in isolation vis-à-vis the decree passed in the complaint case. Therefore, simply because the Appellant partly complied with the order of the Ld. District Forum and review petition is pending before the Hon’ble Commission, given that the operation of the said order together with the order of the Ld. District Forum has not been put under suspended animation either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the Hon’ble National Commission itself, the Appellant cannot drag its feet and refrain from religious compliance of the decree.

We also did not find any substance into the contention of the Appellant without first passing an Order u/s 25 of the 1986 Act, no order can be passed u/s 27 of the Act for the simple reason that the statute does not prescribe any such sequence of events. 

Sec. 27 of the Act, in unequivocal terms, stipulates that, where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made, fails to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such defaulter is bound the face the consequences as contained under this Section. 

Seen against such backdrop, we find no infirmity with the impugned order.

Accordingly, we dismiss both the Appeals with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.