HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This appeal has been filed under section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenging the impugned order No. 31 dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat in connection with Execution Case No. EA/344/2015 filed by the appellant by which the Learned District Commission was pleased to direct both the parties to comply the order passed by this Commission.
- The short facts of the case are that the appellant herein being the complainant lodged a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Learned District Forum on 07.04.2014 and the said complaint was allowed on contest in part on 07.08.2015 with the following directions :-
“That the complainant is directed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.3,53,803/- to the OPs within one month from the date of order;
That the OPs are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for house rent within one month from the date of the order;
That the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs within one month from the date of the order;
For non-compliance of any of the above orders within the specified time, defaulting party(ies) shall be liable to pay an interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount(s) to be counted just after lapse of the said time”.
- Since the said order has not been complied with the appellant / complainant put the order into execution. Meanwhil e, an appeal was preferred by the complainant under section 15 of the Act being No. A/972/2015 and the said appeal was dismissed by this Commission on 07.08.2018. The said order dated 07.08.2018 has not been challenged by any higher forum, so, the order passed by the Learned District Forum has attained its finality. During pendency of the execution proceeding, respondent / Jdr sent a letter through his Advocate addressing the Dhr requesting to adjust the amount of Rs.75,000/- ( Rs.60,000/- as compensation for house rent plus Rs.10,000/- as compensation plus Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost) with the amount of Rs.3,53,803/- (Rupees three lakh fifty three thousand eight hundred and three) only payable by Dhr. / appellant. The Learned District Forum has observed that when relying upon that letter the Dhr / appellant did not take any fruitful steps, no interest component will be imposed upon the amount payable by Dhr. / respondent. The said observation was challenged before this Commission and an appeal was filed and after hearing, the said appeal was allowed on 19.08.2019 with the following directions :-
“the impugned order is hereby set aside.
The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 30.08.2015 to receive further order from the said authority.
The Ld. District Forum is requested to direct the parties to deposit the amount payable by them along with interest with a specific date within three months from date, precisely DHr. to make payment of Rs.3,53,803/- along with simple interest thereon @9% p.a. thereon from 07.09.2015 in favour of the J.Dr. in default, the execution case shall stand dismissed and on the contrary, if the J.Dr. fails to pay Rs.75,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. thereon in favour of the D.Hr from 07.09.2015, the Ld. District Forum shall apply coercive method, if necessary, to execute the solemn order passed by it.
Resultantly, IA/639/2019 stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information”.
- Subsequently, the appellant / Dhr. filed an execution case and Learned District Forum was pleased to direct both the parties to comply the order passed by this Commission on 19.08.2019 by the impugned order.
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the appellant / Dhr. has preferred this appeal.
- Section 72(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-
“Whoever fails to comply with any order made by the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be punishable with 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 twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.”
- Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-
“73. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where an order is passed under sub-section (1) of section 72, an appeal shall lie, both on facts and on law from –
(a) the order made by the District Commission to the State Commission;
(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and
(c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.
(2) Except as provided in sub-section (1), no appeal shall lie before any court, from any order of a District Commission or a State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of order of a District Commission or a State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be:
Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period of thirty days.”
- From the conjoint reading of section 72 & 73 of the Act it is clear that an appeal under section 73 can lie before the State Commission on the facts of law, if an order of conviction and sentence is passed under section 72(1) of the Act by the District Commission as against the order of conviction and sentence made by the State Commission, an appeal can be preferred to the National Commission and order of conviction and sentence by the Hon’ble National Commission would be appealable before the Supreme Court. It appears to us that in the instant case no order of sentence or fine was imposed by the impugned order, rather, by the impugned order both parties of the execution case were directed to comply with the order passed by the Commission on 19.08.2019 passed in connection with the appeal being No. A/192/2019. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the appeal under section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable in the eye of law and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
- In the order, the appeal is dismissed in limini.
- The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
