JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1.       This Revision Petition arises out of proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in a dispute relating to supply of surgical equipments for an Orthopaedic surgery conducted while operating to treat the fracture in the thighbone of the Complainant Mr. Ram Singh, who is the first Respondent herein. In order to set right the fracture, the steel rod was purchased on the recommendation of the concerned doctor and according to the Complainant, the same was purchased from M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgicare Shop for a sum of Rs.4,316/-. This purchase was made by the Complainant on 10.05.2007.

2.       According to the Complainant, he got himself treated at Saadat Hospital, Tonk (Rajasthan), where he was referred for surgery to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. It was alleged by the Complainant that one Dr. R.C. Bansiwal, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 in the Complainant, originally had conducted the operation, but later on he developed pain and after several months he consulted the PBM Hospital on 23.02.2008, where he was advised to get an X-Ray done. His pain did not subside and therefore he also alleges to have met Dr. Bansiwal and then again on 23.03.2008 went PBM Hospital, where it was ultimately found that the steel rod, which had been inserted for rectifying the fracture during surgery, had broken.

3.       The Complainant alleged that he was informed that the steel rod was of a very poor quality that was supplied by M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgicare Shop and in turn he came to know that the said rod was manufactured by M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited, who were also impleaded in the Complaint.

4.       It may be pointed out that the Complaint No.326 of 2008 had three defendants namely, Manager of M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgicare Shop as Opposite Party No.1, Dr. R.C. Bansiwal, who is alleged to have performed the surgery at Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, and who had recommended the purchase of the steel rod, and the third Opposite Party was the Proprietor of M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited, the manufacturer of the steel rod.

5.       During the pendency of the Complaint, as recited in the order passed by the District Commission on 26.03.2009, the Opposite Party No.2, Dr. R.C. Bansiwal had denied performing the surgery and was accordingly deleted. Resultantly the Complaint before the District Forum, Tonk, proceeded against the Manager of M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgicare Shop the supplier, and the Proprietor of M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited the manufacturer. This is evident from the array of parties that has been displayed in the order of the District Commission dated 26.03.2009.

6.       M/s. Devi Distributors had taken a plea that if there was any manufacturing defect in the steel rod, the same was not their liability and even otherwise to locate a manufacturing defect it was necessary to have an expert opinion that did not exist. The Complaint therefore was prayed to be rejected as against them.

7.       The Opposite Party No.3, M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited, the manufacturer were proceeded ex-parte as they did not appear and the Complaint was allowed holding the shop owner-cum-stock distributor as well as the manufacturer to be liable jointly and severally and to pay compensation together with refund. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded towards deficiency in service coupled with 9% interest on default, Rs.15,000/- for physical torture and monetary loss and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.       There is nothing on record to indicate any challenge raised by way of appeal or otherwise to the said final order dated 26.03.2009 by any of the parties and therefore one has to proceed on the presumption that the said order has attained finality in terms of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.       Since the Complainant did not receive the amount from the two Opposite Parties against whom the decree had been passed namely M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgicare Shop through its Manager and M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited through its Proprietor, an application was filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It may be pointed out that no application seems to have been moved under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, Application No.40 of 2010 was entertained under Section 27 of the 1986 Act, on which summons were issued and the order is extracted hereinunder:

“DISTRICT FORUM CONSUMERS PROTECTION, TONK (Rajashthan)

APPLICATION LETTER NO.40/2010

U/s. 27 of Consumers Protection Act, 1986

For:

Rajesh Kudi S/o Shir Nanurai - Caste Jat - Proprietor Vinayak Medical and Provision Store, Shop No.15 Sunder Market Near SMS Hospital Jaipur.

INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE CONSUMERS PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Complainant Shri Ram Singh son of Ram Swaroop has presented an application under section 27 of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 with this allegation that you have failed and have not been complying with the orders passed the matter of plain No.326/2008 - Ram Singh versus Prop. Green Surgical Co. Ltd. and another. Copy of the application is annexed. You are hereby directed that you should present yourself before this Forum personally on 25.06.2014 at 10:00 in the morning and narrate the reasons why should you not be punished u/s 27 of Consumers Protection Act 1986 for failing complying with the above orders/for not complying with the orders.

This is also informed to you that if you fail to be present and fail to narrate the reasons for the above cause as per directions, then the application will be heard singly and will be punished ex parte.

Date                                            sd/in English

District Forum Consumers Protection

Tonk (Rajasthan)”

10.     The District Forum proceeded on the said application, but since there were no details of the person obliged to comply with the orders of the State Commission, such details were awaited which arrived through an application dated 26.06.2013 moved by the Complainant. A copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure-G to this Revision Petition stating therein that the Complainant was not aware of the name of the authorized person of the Opposite Parties, and since now the Complainant has come to know that the Petitioner was the authorized representative, the application was being moved for summoning him for complying with the order. The translated English version of the said application dated 26.06.2013 is extracted hereinunder:

“BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM,TONK

Ram Singh Versus Green Surgical Company Limited

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

APPLICATION FOR PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 27 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Application No.326/08

Application against respondent No.3 of the authorized representative

Sir,

        The application is submitted on behalf of the applicant – complainant as under:-

1. That in the above mentioned case date has been fixed.
2. That previously due to not the address of respondent No.3 Green Surgical Company Limited, the complainant could not filed the address, today complainant after getting the address of the respondent producing the address before the Forum which has been recorded for summoning in the interest of justice. The address of the respondent No.3 is

Rajesh Kudi S/o Shri Nanu Ram Kudi By Caste Jat, Mobile No.9928821378.

Manager Devi Distributor & Surgicare, MadhoparI, Pride Near Okey Diagnostice Centre, Vivekanand Marg, Sawai Man Singh Hospital Road, Jaipur through authorized officer/

M/s Green Surgical Company Private Limited, First Floor, Safdarganj Enclage, Delhi, Factor Address – Plot No.508-512 I.D.C. Industrial Area, Savli Manjusar, District Badodra (Gujarat)

Dated: 26.06.2013Complainant

Ram Singh S/o Ramswaroop Daroga

Resident of Uniyara, Tonk, Raj.”

11.     It appears that acting upon the said information and in exercise of the powers under Section 27 of 1986 Act, in the absence of anyone appearing on behalf of the Judgement Debtors, an arrest warrant was issued by the District Commission on 13.10.2014 fixing 13.11.2014 in the matter. The said order is extracted hereinunder:

“Copy of order sheet Ram Singh vs. Management of Green Surgical Case No.40/2010

13.10.2014

Present counsel for the applicant. Non applicant and his counsel are not present. No prayer is made.

Summon the non-applicant Rajesh Kudi through Non bailable warrant.

The case is fixed for 13.11.2014.”

12.     It appears that dates were fixed on 10.03.2015, 11.03.2015, 16.03.2015, and 19.03.2015, when it was directed that the earlier date fixed on 25.03.2015 is pre-poned to 20.03.2015. On 20.03.2015, the Petitioner appeared through Counsel praying for cancellation of the order of warrant of arrest which was rejected by the District Commission. Against this order no appeal was filed under Section 27A of the Act. Instead, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition No.13 of 2015 under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act before the State Commission.

13.     Before the State Commission in the Revision, the manufacturer M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited through its Director Dr. Vinay Kumar moved an application represented by a Counsel praying that Mr. Rajesh Kudi, the Petitioner herein, had earlier appeared as the Authorized Representative and moved an objection signed by him through Counsel, but sometime thereafter Mr. Rajesh Kudi left his job and was no longer working with the company.

14.     It was therefore prayed by M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited through its Director Dr. Vinay Kumar to drop the name of Mr. Rajesh Kudi from the proceedings and to allow the Company to be represented by their current authorized officer. This application dated 04.11.2015 has also been filed on record and is extracted hereinunder:

“BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

JAIPUR

REVISION PETITION NO._____ OF 2015

Rajesh Kudi             Versus        Ram Singh & others

Sir,

    The application is submitted on behalf of the Non-applicant No.1 as under:

1. That in the above mentioned case date is fixed today.
2. That the notice has been issued to the applicant as proprietor of non-petitioner No.4 by the Hon’ble Commission, therefore, the applicant has been appeared before the Hon’ble Commission.
3. That in the above case previously the applicant received the notice from the learned District Forum Tonk U/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act on dated 26.09.2010, in which the reply and objection filed by the applicant on dated 13.10.2010 has not been decided by learned Forum till today.
4. That the applicant appointed the counsel and filed the reply and objection by his representative Rajesh Kudi for his company Green Surgical. The representative Rajesh Kudi stopped the work after filing the reply and objection of application.
5. That there is no objection to drop the proceedings under section 27 pending in application No.40/2010 in original complaint No.326/2008 against the petitioner.
6. That the representative of applicant company will be appeared through his counsel on next date in proceeding Section 27, which is pending in original case No.326/2008 on next date.

It is therefore, humbly submitted that the application filed by the applicant may kindly be allowed and the permission may be granted in application No.14/2010 which submitted under Section 27 in original complaint No.326/2008 on dated 13.10.2010 and be decided expeditiously.

Jaipur                             Applicant Non Petition No.4

Date: 04.11.2015            (Dr. Vinay Kumar)

                                      Director, Green Surgical Pvt. Ltd.”

15.     The Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed in default on 14.03.2016. The order dated 14.03.2016 is extracted hereinunder:-

“14.03.2016

Before Hon’ble Justice Nisha Gupta – President

Hon’ble Shree Kailash Soyal – Member

Advocate Revisionist is not present advocate respondent shree sunil jain present. Advocate Dinesh sharma present on behalf of respondent no.4. No appeared on behalf of respondent no.3. Advocate Revisionist did not present on dated 01.03.2016 and today also not present. So revision is to be dismissed in default. File decided and recorded in office.”

16.     An application by the Petitioner to restore the Revision Petition was dismissed on 20.05.2016 on the ground that the State Commission did not have the power to review. The order dated 20.05.2016 is extracted hereinunder:

“20.05.2016

Before Hon’ble Justice Nisha Gupta – President

Hon’ble Shree Kailash Soyal – Member

Advocate S.R. Khan present on behalf of applicant. Heard the arguments on restoration application. The review power is not available in this court. So petition is not maintainable. Petition is not allowed. File decided and recorded in office.”

17.     Aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition assailing the order dated 20.05.2016.

18.     Two applications were moved by the Petitioner in this Revision, being IA/6608/2016 and IA/10822/2016, praying that since the Petitioner was not the employee of M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited and he is the owner of his own shop M/s. Vinayak Medicals, the operation of the impugned order should be stayed with a prayer to stay the warrant of arrest as well.

19.     Notices were issued on this application on 16.09.2016 and the following order was passed on 25.08.2017:

“Dated: 25-08-2017

ORDER

  No one is present on behalf of respondent’ no.1 to 3.

  I.A. No.3873 of 2017 is an application filed by the petitioner for deletion of respondents’ no.2 & 3 from the array of parties. Issue notice of I.A. No.3873 of 2017 to respondents No.1& 4.

  Counsel for the petitioner states that I.A. No.6608 of 2016 had been erroneously filed and does not press for the same. I.A. No.6608 of 2016 is dismissed as not been pressed.

  I.A. No.10822 of 2016 is for stay of the interim order. Counsel for the petitioner cannot tell me as to which is the order for which he is asking for stay.

  List the case on 05-02-2016.”

20.     The matter remained pending for service of notice. Thereafter the pandemic intervened and the case was adjourned on several occasions. From the aforesaid facts and the documents on record, it is evident that later on, on 16.03.2022, IA/3873/2017 was allowed by this Commission whereby the Respondents No.2 and 3 were sought to be deleted. These were M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgicare Shop, the supplier of the steel rod, and Dr. R.C. Bansiwal, who had already been deleted before the District Commission as noted above. The order is extracted hereinunder:

“Dated:16.03.2022

ORDER

  An Application being IA No.3873 of 2017 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking deletion of the name of Respondent No.2 and 3 from the Array of Parties.

  I have heard Mr. Ankit Batra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the averments made in the Application.

  The Application is allowed. The names of Respondent No.2 and 3 are deleted from the Array of Parties at the own risk of the Petitioner. Amended Memo of Parties filed by the Petitioner be taken on record.

  List the matter for Final Hearing on 05.07.2022 before the appropriate Bench, as per the roster.”

21.     The Respondent No.2 and 3 in this Revision were accordingly deleted and the matter was directed to come up for final hearing. As a result of the aforesaid orders, it is only the original Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 and M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited through its Proprietor, who continue to be the parties in this Revision Petition.

22.     The case was adjourned on several occasions thereafter and remained unattended when it was finally indicated that no one was appearing for the Complainant/Respondent No.1. Apart from the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Rashmi has been appearing for the other Respondent namely M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited through its Proprietor. The matter was finally argued on 12.09.2024 and the parties were heard.

23.     Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once it was on record that the Petitioner was neither the Proprietor nor was he representing any of the Opposite Parties, nor was he a party in person, therefore, the warrant could not have issued against him in the Execution Proceedings, which is a gross irregularity and therefore his contentions deserved to be heard and the order dated 20.05.2016 should be recalled.

24.     Ld. Counsel for the Respondent M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited, Ms. Rashmi urged that this issue can be decided only by the State Commission in the Revision Petition that deserves to be restored and heard but no liability can be fixed or proceeded with at the moment against any party in the background of the case.

25.     Interestingly, the final order dated 26.03.2009 passed by the District Commission in the original complaint seems to be preserved as an ancient relic awaiting an honourable execution with no challenge raised to it by any of the judgement debtors. So far as the shop owner supplier M/s. Devi Distributors is concerned, the Petitioner has chosen to delete them in this Revision even though the decree dated 26.03.2009 remains intact.

26.     Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the proceedings against the Petitioner were challenged by him in a Revision Petition No.13 of 2015 before the State Commission that was dismissed in default on 14.03.2016 and the Restoration No.14 of 2016 was dismissed on 20.05.2016 on the ground that the State Commission had no power to review. In our opinion, the order of the State Commission does not seem to be suffering from any irregularity while dismissing the Restoration Application on 20.05.2016, inasmuch as, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is no such power available for review.

27.     Nonetheless, the fact remains that the warrants have been issued against the Petitioner, who claims that he was no longer in the employment of M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited and according to its Director, Dr. Vinay Kumar, had appeared only once for taking a date and filing the objections as noted above. On the other hand, an order was passed on 20.03.2015, rejecting his application for cancelling the warrant, which was subject matter of the Revision Petition that has been dismissed in default.

28.     The Respondent M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited through its Director Dr. Vinay Kumar moved an application before the State Commission in the Revision filed by the Petitioner clearly stating that he was no longer in the employment of the Company and that they will be making some other arrangement for an appearance on their behalf in the Execution Proceedings. This Application dated 04.11.2015, does not seem to have been either referred to or disposed of. The Application was moved through the Director of the Company Dr. Vinay Kumar. It is also on record that M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited was arrayed through their Proprietor, and not through their Manager or employee. It is thus evident that the Execution if permissible under law could have proceeded against the Company or its assets subject to objections, if any, the address whereof was shown in the array of parties and also by the Complainant. The registered office of the Company is at New Delhi and its manufacturing unit is at Vadodara (Gujarat). These addresses are available, but it is not understood as to why the State Commission did not take notice of these facts, may be presumably because the case went unattended on behalf of the Petitioner.

29.     Further, from the order dated 14.03.2016, quoted hereinabove, it is evident that Advocate Mr. Dinesh Sharma was present on behalf of Respondent No.4 in the Revision Petition before the State Commission, who was none else than M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited. It was the application dated 04.11.2015 moved by M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited to drop the name of the Petitioner as he was no longer the employee and to allow the Company to be represented through its current authorized representative, who will be present on the next date. Once such an application had been moved and the contesting party was represented through Counsel, the State Commission even while dismissing the case in default, could have taken notice of the same that would have further facilitated in resolving the controversy.

30.     Apart from this, Mr. Rajesh Kudi, the Petitioner herein, was not a party to the original order dated 26.03.2009 and the decree was against the Proprietor of M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited. Mr. Rajesh Kudi is stated to have appeared on behalf of the Company for filing objections to the Execution Application as their representative but he was no longer representing the Company nor was he the Proprietor, and consequently the warrant issued against him does not seem to conform to the description of parties in the original proceedings. The warrant could have been issued to the Proprietor or Director, as was done before the State Commission in the Revision, where the Director Dr. Vinay Kumar had appeared through his application dated 04.11.2015.

31.     This aspect of the matter therefore indicates that there might be an irregularity in the process adopted for summoning the Petitioner, but there is one impediment in the present proceedings. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the State Commission refusing to restore the Petition vide order dated 20.05.2016. In our opinion, the power to review did not exist and therefore the State Commission rightly dismissed the review application on 20.05.2016.

32.     The question that then arises is that once a Revision filed against the order dated 20.03.2015 and the order dated 13.10.2014 was dismissed in default on 14.03.2016, will a Revision before National Commission be available by the same party? This power to revise under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is available to the State Commission under Section 17(1)(b). The same power is available to the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act but against orders of the State Commission only. The powers are identical in nature but one is available against the order passed by the District Commission under Section 17(1)(b) and the other is against the order passed by the State Commission under Section 21(b).

33.     In the present case, the Revision before the State Commission was dismissed in default on 14.03.2016. As noted above, there is no power to review with the State Commission. In our opinion, the order passed on 14.03.2016 dismissing the Revision Petition in default may be causing injury to the Petitioner but if the Counsel failed to appear, then the State Commission was justified in proceeding to dismiss the Revision in default.

34.     This in turn would revive the order dated 13.10.2014 and 20.03.2015 against the Petitioner. In our considered opinion, revival of this order may not be beneficial for the Complainant as admittedly the Petitioner has neither been found to be the Proprietor of M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited nor has he been found liable as the employee or representative of the Company on the date warrants were issued, that stands admitted in the application filed by the Director of the Company Dr. Vinay Kumar on 04.11.2015, quoted hereinabove. In fact the merit of this contention was not examined by the State Commission at all and the revision was dismissed only for default. The answer to this question lies in the understanding of the Provisions under the 1986 Act. As noted above, proceedings of issuing summons and warrants were undertaken by the District Commission on an application moved under Section 27 by the Complainant for compliance of the final order dated 26.03.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.326 of 2008. The orders dated 13.10.2014 and 20.03.2015 passed by the District Commission in these proceedings were not challenged through any appeal under Section 27A of the Act before the State Commission. Had that been done, then a revision could have been filed against the order, if any appeal was preferred as held in a reference answered by this Commission’s Larger Bench (3 Members’ Decision) in ‘Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Perfect Prints’  in First Appeal No.493 of 2011 and Revision Petition No.90 of 2011 decided on 09.01.2015. The order is extracted hereinunder:-

“In the light of majority judgment reference is answered as under:

1. no appeal before this Commission is maintainable against an order whether interim or final passed by the State Commission under Section 25 of the Act. However, such an order can be challenged before this Commission by way of a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act;
2. an appeal under Section 27A of the Act is maintainable before this Commission against an original order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act irrespective of whether it be a final order, intermediate order or interlocutory order;
3. no second Appeal in relation to an order passed by a District Forum under Section 27 of the Act is maintainable;
4. an order passed by a State Commission, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 27A of the Act, can be challenged only by way of a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act, before this Commission, irrespective of whether it is a final intermediate or interlocutory order;
5. an appeal under Section 19 with Section 21(a)(ii) is maintainable before this Commission against an order passed by the State Commission, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of Act, irrespective of whether it is a final, intermediate or interlocutory order. No Revision Petition against such an order is maintainable;
6. no appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the State Commission, in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. However, such an order can be challenged before this Commission, by way of a Revision Petition under Section 219b) of the Act.”

35.     Instead, the Petitioner filed a revision under section 17(1)(b) before the State Commission that was dismissed in default on 14.03.2016 and the application to review the same was rejected on 20.05.2016 against which the present revision has been filed. For this it would be apt to refer to Section 17(1)(b) and Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act. The wordings of the said provisions are almost identical, except that the said power is exercisable by the State Commission against an order of the District Commission under Section 17(1)(b) whereas under Section 21(b), the National Commission can exercise the same powers against the order of the State Commission. These powers have been defined and commence with a non-obstante Clause stating “subject to the other provisions of this Act”. This clearly means that where an order is appealable, the said power would not be exercisable. Secondly the words “consumer dispute” occurs in both the Sections. The words “consumer dispute” have been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act which is extracted hereinunder:

“2(e) “consumer dispute” means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint;”

36.     A perusal of the said provision would indicate that a consumer dispute envisages a complaint and also obliges a party to respond to the allegations contained in the “complaint”. It is only in the proceedings of a complaint either before the District Commission or before the State Commission as defined under Section 2(c) that if an order is passed, the same would be revisable under Section 17(1)(b) or 21(b) as the case may be which is not appealable under Section 17(1)(a)(ii) and Section 19 of the Act. This aspect of the scope of the powers under Section 17(1)(b) and 21(b) were discussed by the Bombay High Court in the case of ‘R.B. Upadhyay versus State Commission for Consumer Disputes’, Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2009, decided on 04.05.2010, reported in AIR 2010 Bombay Page 139, where paragraph No.10 deals into this issue holding that an order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the State Commission under Section 17(1)(b) would not be further subject to a revision under Section 21(b) of the Act. Paragraph No.10 of the said judgement is extracted hereinunder:

“10.      Before we answer the main questions, we may first deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent No.2 that as a Revision is available before the National Commission, this Court ought not to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Section 21(b) on which reliance is placed, reads as under:-

“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.—

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”

Thus from the clear and literal language of Section 21(b) the revisional jurisdiction can only be if a consumer dispute is pending before or has been decided by the State Commission. In other words the National Commission would have no jurisdiction if the order is passed in exercise of the Appellate power or Revisional jurisdiction exercised by the State Commission under Section 17(1)(b). The power under Section 21(b) is in respect of a complaint filed before the State Commission. In our opinion, therefore, the first contention as urged is devoid of merit.”

37.     The said issue was further explained by the Orrisa High Court in Writ Petition No.775 of 2015, ‘Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Minarva Dash and others’, decided on 10.09.2015, while referring to a judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2004 Andhra Pradesh Page 49, Paragraph No.20. The said judgement quoted with approval the judgement of the Bombay High Court extracted hereinabove, and then opined in paragraph No.21 as follows:

“21.      ………21(b) of the Act, it can be construed that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if some dispute is pending or has been decided by the State Commission. In other words, the National Commission would have no jurisdiction if the impugned order is passed in exercise of the appellate power or revisional power exercised by the State Commission under Section 17(1)(b).”

38.     From the aforesaid pronouncements of two High Courts, it is evident that once the revisional jurisdiction has been exercised by the State Commission against an order of the District Commission then no further revision will lie to the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act.

39.     Additionally, as noted above, the Petitioner was aggrieved by the proceedings and orders passed by the District Commission under Section 27 of the Act against which no appeal under Section 27A was preferred before the State Commission. It is only if an appeal was preferred under Section 27A and orders passed thereon that a revision could have been maintained before this Commission against such an order. But here the Petitioner chose to file a revision before the State Commission and it is the orders passed in the revision that have been assailed herein. Consequently by any standards as discussed above, the present revision cannot be maintained.

40.     Even though, the issue does not exactly arise in this case for adjudication, yet needs to be clarified that the present proceedings relate to steps taken by the Complainant under Section 27 of the 1986 Act and not of enforcement/execution under Section 25 of the Act. The Apex Court in a matter of enforcement under Section 25, while assessing an order passed in an Appeal (Execution Appeal) under Section 15 of the 1986 Act before the State Commission opined that a revision before the National Commission under Section 21(b) would not lie against such an order passed under Section 15 of the Act, as enforcement orders are in the nature of execution proceedings that are not a continuation of the original proceedings of a “Consumer Dispute” in a complaint. Reference be had to the decision in ‘Karnataka Housing Board versus K.A. Nagamani’ 2019(6) SCC Page 424 as affirmed by a three Judges’ decision in the decision of ‘Shashikant Ragunath Patil versus Putubai Narsinh Naik’ SLP No.5793 of 2020 decided on 26.10.2020.

41.     All observations, findings and citations discussed above are exclusively in relation to the repealed Act of 1986 and only in the context of the issue raised herein.

42.     However, the Petitioner cannot be left remediless and for which the judgement of Orrisa High Court referred to above holds that a Writ Petition would not be barred for such a relief. Consequently, the Revision Petition is consigned to record with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.