Execution Applications under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act
What to do if the Opposite Party does not obey the order of the various Consumer Forums / Commissions which have attained finality…..
You have to file Execution Applications under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act
In Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Amir Ali Tharani vs Mr Rajesh Sukhtnkar decided on 27 September, 2010, the Commission has detailed the difference between these two provisions and the procedure to be followed.
I am giving the gist below…….I am also giving the link to the full decision at the end of this article.
(k) Proceeding under Section 27 is a criminal proceeding and the said proceeding is required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 27 only. The procedure is a summery criminal procedure to be followed in case of offence and therefore, Chapter XX & XXI which dealt with the procedure of the summery trial of the criminal case will be and shall be applicable in a proceeding under Section 27;
(l) It is clarified that the orders passed by the Consumer Fora are no more deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court so as to attract provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure. After the amendment of Section 25, procedure as provided in old Section 25 is not applicable and therefore, the Consumer Fora cannot invoke powers under Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the order; after new Section 25 has been brought on Statute Book dated 15/03/2003 and therefore, neither the Consumer Fora nor the Civil Court can now execute the orders of the Consumer Fora as if they are decrees of the Civil Court as was permissible under the old Section 25;
(m) Under Section 27 District Consumer Forum in a composite way is constituted as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and conferred with the powers of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and this status and the powers have been given by Section 27(2) by applying non-obstante clause and it is clarified that said non-obstante clause is only applicable in sub-Section (2) of Section 27 by which the Consumer Fora have been declared as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class with conferment of powers as such Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Had the said non-obstante clause been not there, it would have been necessary for the Consumer Fora to get a status of Judicial Magistrate of First Class and conferment of the powers under Section 11 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in order to avoid such difficulties, the Legislature has directly conferred the powers & status of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class directly by the legislation and for said limited purpose, non-obstante clause has been introduced in Section (2) of Section 27.
It is to be clarified that offence under Section 27(1) of the Act has been provided under the Special Act, namely, Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So far as trial is concerned, sub-Section (3) has specifically provided for summary procedure of trial and we held that the procedure as provided under Chapter XX & XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed. We also clarify that in view of provisions of Section 4, 5 & 6 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it follows that except and for the purpose, the specific procedure which has been provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 rest of the procedure as may be applicable from the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be followed by the Consumer Fora while dealing with the complaint or application under Section 27 i.e. while sitting and dealing with the application under Section 27 as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and from that angle, we have analysed the procedure in the earlier part of the judgement.
The third party application may be permissible in a proceeding under Section 25(1) &(2) as discussed above. However, third party proceeding is not applicable in case of proceeding under Section 25(3) before the Consumer Fora. That may be possible while the Collector has taken steps for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. So far as proceeding under Section 27 is concerned, there would not be a third party proceeding, since this is a criminal proceeding where the opponent who is a person allegedly committed an offence as provided under Section 27(1). This a question is to be considered by the Consumer Fora sitting as Judicial Magistrate of First Class composite.
Link to the full decision: