KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 16/2018
ORDER DATED: 17.10.2018
(Against the order in EA 39/2013 in C.C. 324/2009 of CDRF, Kottayam)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Kerala Water Authority, Jalabhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Supply Project Sub Division, KWA, Vaikom, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Issac Samuel)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
N.M. Raveendran, Bharatheeyam, Vadayar, Vaikaprayar P.O, Vaikom
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Judgment debtor in E.A 39/2013 (2nd opposite party in CC No 324/2009) has filed this revision challenging the Order passed by the forum directing to issue warrant against him for non-compliance of the Order of the forum under sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Notice given, opposite party/decree holder has entered appearance through counsel.
2. We heard the counsel on both sides and perused the Order challenged in revision. Judgment debtor proceeded is a public servant, Assistant Engineer of Kerala Water Authority. We notice that he was not even a party in the complaint which was proceeded against the Water Authority and another, an Assistant Engineer of that authority. Even assuming that the judgment debtor represented the opposite parties in the complaint proceedings that by itself is not sufficient to proceed against him under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. More than that the question is whether it is appropriate or justifiable to proceed under Sec. 27 against a government servant /official of a statutory body when the individual occupying that seat or post is not permanent but transferable from time to time and, further, where the acts imputed relating to discharge of his official duties. Assuming that there was latches on the part of such a public servant in discharging his official duties unless he is proceeded in his personal capacity as well it is inappropriate and further illegal to invoke penal proceedings against him that too by issuing non-bailable warrant. The lower forum has not applied its mind before ordering warrant against the judgment debtor, a public servant, and, in the given facts of the case it could have proceeded only against the 1st opposite party Water Authority. We are not expressing any opinion whether decree holder has a case on merit to proceed against Water Authority, and also whether such proceedings are to be taken in the case for non-compliance of the order. The order passed by the lower forum is set aside with direction to consider the execution application moved by the decree holder afresh in accordance with law taking note of the observations made above. Revision is allowed.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
jb BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
