HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This appeal has been filed under section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Barasat in connection with M.A. No. 158/2018 arising out of Execution Case being No. EA/210/2013 by which M.A. Application being No. 158/2018 was allowed and Execution Application being No. 210/2023 was disposed of on full and final satisfaction.
- The short fact of the case is that decree holder Bachcha Rama Rao filed a complaint case being No. CC/70/2013 against the respondents on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent / Jdrs in a consumer dispute.
- The said complaint case was allowed. The appellant / decree holder filed an Execution case being No. E/210/2013 against the order of the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Barasat, the respondents preferred an appeal being No. FA/841/2013. On 29/05/2015 the said appeal being No. FA/841/2013 was dismissed for non prosecution against the order of dismissal the respondents preferred a revisional application before the Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi. On 13/03/2018 the Hon’ble National Commission passed an order considering settlement terms and revision petition was disposed of. Thereafter, on 17.06.2018 the respondents filed M.A. Application being No. M.A./158/2018. The M.A. Application being No. M.A./158/2018 was allowed by the Learned District Forum by the impugned order. Upon perusal of the record and the impugned order it appears to us that against the order dated 14.09.2018 the appellants have filed this appeal under section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-
“27. Penalties.-
(1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be such trader or person or complainant 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 two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.”
- Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-
“27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from –
(a) the order made by the District Forum 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 aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission:
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 period of thirty days.”
- From the conjoint reading of section 27 and 27 A of the Act, it is clear that an appeal under section 27 A can lie before the State Commission on facts of Law, if an order of conviction and sentence is passed under section 27 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 that the instant appeal has been filed challenging the order of disposal of Execution Case on full satisfaction. It appears to us that no order of sentence and imprisonment was passed by the Learned District Forum and no order of sentence / or imprisonment has been assailed before this Commission and has not been brought on record. As such, we are of the view that this appeal under section 27 of the Act is not maintainable at all since no order of sentence or imprisonment was passed by the impugned order. Therefore, considering the facts we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed in limini as not maintainable in law. In the result, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini.
- The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
- The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
