Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 224 - 225 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 10, 2015

REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 224-225 OF 2015


KAMLESH AGGARWAL                                          .........APPELLANT

                                     Vs.

NARAIN SINGH DABBAS & ANR.                                 ......RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of her First Appeal Nos.  645  and  646  of  2013
vide order dated  8.1.2014  by  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal
Commission, New Delhi, purported to have been filed under Section 21 of  the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for  short  "the  Act"),  against  the  order
dated 30.7.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission,
Lucknow in Appeal Nos. 2082 and 2083 of 2010, the appellant has filed  these
appeals, urging various relevant facts and  legal  contentions  seeking  for
setting aside the said order.
The brief facts of the case are stated as    under :-
The appellant filed a Complaint No. 24 of 1998 before the District  Consumer
Disputes  Redressal  Forum,  Ghaziabad  (for  short  "the  District  Forum")
against Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.-the respondent  in  the  original
complaint, for not allotting and registering plot No.  114,  Village  Khoda,
Ghaziabad in her name as the Awas Samiti, in  a  resolution  passed  by  it,
cancelled the membership of the appellant from the  Navchetna  Sahkari  Awas
Samiti Ltd. in default of payment by her.
The District Forum vide its  order  dated  17.10.2003  after  conducting  an
enquiry as provided under the provisions of the Act, accepted the  complaint
of the appellant and directed the Navchetna  Sahkari  Awas  Samiti  Ltd.  to
allot the said plot in favour of the appellant  and  also  to  register  the
same in her favour within 3 months from the date of the order.
Since,  there  was  non  compliance  of  the  order  dated  17.10.2003,  the
appellant filed Execution Petition before the District Forum to execute  the
order and requested it to punish the respondents under Sections  25  and  27
of the Act. In the  said  case  one  Gulab  Singh  (the  alleged  subsequent
allottee of the  plot  in  question)  filed  an  application  in  the  above
proceedings for impleadment before the District  Forum  as  he  was  in  the
possession of the plot in question, which was allotted  by  the  respondents
and a Civil Suit No. 1510 of 2005 filed by him  was  pending  in  the  Civil
Court. The District Forum vide its  order  dated  13.9.2006  held  that  the
order dated 17.10.2003 is  null  and  void.  It  was  further  held  by  the
District Forum that the appellant should approach the Civil Court  and  only
after the rejection of the suit of  Gulab  Singh  in  the  Civil  Court  the
execution  proceedings  will  be  heard  by  the  District  Forum  and  pass
appropriate order and rejected  the  application  of  impleadment  of  Gulab
Singh.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2006  of  the  District  Forum,  the
appellant filed Appeal     No.  2636  of  2006  before  the  State  Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short "the  State
Commission"). The State  Commission  has  passed  an  order  dated  7.9.2007
holding that it was not open for the  District  Forum  to  review  the  same
matter on merits at the instance of the  impleading  applicant  and  declare
its earlier decree as null and void. Thus, the State Commission allowed  the
appeal of the appellant and directed the District Forum  to  proceed  afresh
with the execution proceedings.
The said order dated 7.9.2007 of the State Commission was not challenged  by
the respondents, but Gulab Singh filed Revision Petition No.  4069  of  2007
before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New  Delhi  (for
short "the National Commission") against the said order.
The National Commission, having  found  either  no  illegality  or  material
irregularity in the order dated 7.9.2007 passed  by  the  State  Commission,
dismissed the Revision Petition of  Gulab Singh on  12.8.2008  by  observing
that the State Commission was fully justified in allowing the  appeal  filed
by the appellant and setting aside the order dated 13.9.2006 passed  by  the
District Forum.
The appellant filed  the  application  for  execution  of  the  order  dated
17.10.2003 before the District  Forum.  On  29.5.2010,  the  District  Forum
allowed the execution petition directing for compliance of the  order  dated
17.10.2003. It further directed to provide alternate plot as  a  replacement
for the plot  in  question  to  the  appellant  and  if  there  is  no  plot
available, in that circumstances, to pay the amount as compensation  to  the
appellant at the current  rate  equivalent  to  the  area  of  the  plot  in
question.
The respondents filed  review  application  before  the  District  Forum  in
Execution Case No. 96 of 2010 for  review  of  order  dated  29.5.2010.  The
District  Forum  vide  its  order  dated  26.11.2010  dismissed  the  review
application and found the respondents guilty  for  non-compliance  of  order
dated 17.10.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 24 of  1998  and  ordered  for
three months imprisonment of the respondents along with  penalty  amount  of
Rs.3000/- payable by them under provisions of Section 27 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the respondents  filed  Appeal  Nos.
2082 and 2083 of 2010 before the State Commission which were allowed by  its
order dated 30.7.2013 by setting aside the order  dated  26.11.2010  of  the
District Forum. The State Commission observed that the  District  Forum  has
not adopted the procedure of summary trial at the time of passing the  order
of conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondents  as  provided  under
the Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973,  for  non-compliance  of  order  dated
17.10.2003. The State Commission also observed  in  its  order  that  at  no
point of time the respondents were afforded an opportunity  of  being  heard
against the disobedience of the  order  dated  17.10.2003  of  the  District
Forum, which is mandatory as per provisions of sub-clause (3) of Section  27
of the Act and it has to try them by following the summary procedure by  the
District Forum empowered as Judicial Magistrate of the First Class  for  the
purpose of Code of  Criminal  Procedure.  Thus,  the  State  Commission  has
allowed the appeal of the respondents  and  set  aside  the  conviction  and
sentence order passed against them.
The appellant being aggrieved by  the  order  dated  30.7.2013  filed  First
Appeal Nos. 645  and  646  of  2013  before  the  National  Commission.  The
National Commission vide its order  dated  8.1.2014  dismissed  the  appeals
holding  that there is no provision in  the  Act  regarding  the  filing  of
second appeal under Sections 27 or 27A of the Act; even under Section 21  of
the Act, a petition filed against the order passed under Section 27A of  the
Act could not be entertained by it as the appellant has  no  right  and  the
National Commission has no jurisdiction to  entertain  such  appeal.  Hence,
these appeals are filed by the appellant as she is aggrieved  by  the  order
of both the State Commission and the National Commission.
Mr. Digendra  Sharma,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the
appellant contended that the National Commission should not  have  dismissed
the appeals of  the  appellant  as  the  same  would  render  the  appellant
remediless for executing decree passed  against  the  respondents  who  have
till date not complied  with  the  order  dated  17.10.2003  passed  by  the
District Forum and even the same has not been challenged  by  the  Navchetna
Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and therefore, the same has attained  finality.  It
was further contended by him that by dismissing the  second  appeal  of  the
appellant, the order dated 17.10.2003 would become ineffective and  she  has
not got the fruits of the order. The order passed by the District  Forum  in
favour of the appellant, which has attained  finality  cannot  be  made  in-
executable on technical grounds. Even if the order of the District Forum  in
convicting and sentencing the respondents is found to be illegal, the  State
Commission ought to have remanded the matter to the District  Forum  with  a
direction to it to follow the procedure and pass appropriate order.
On the contrary, Mr. Anukul Chandra  Pradhan,  the  learned  senior  counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the appellant has  the
remedy of  revision  before  the  National  Commission  as  available  under
Section 21(b) of the Act.
It was further  contended  by  him  that  the  District  Forum  should  have
followed the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code while  dealing  with  the
application filed by the appellant under Section 27 of the  Act  and  passed
the order and therefore he submits that the impugned order does not  warrant
interference by this Court.
We have heard both the learned counsel on behalf  of  the  parties.  In  the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are  of  the  view  that  the  State
Commission should have remanded the matter to District Forum  after  setting
aside its order dated 26.11.2010  with  a  direction  to  proceed  with  the
matter in accordance with the  procedure  contemplated  under  the  Code  of
Criminal Procedure referred to supra for taking  penal  action  against  the
respondents who are the concerned officers of Navchetna Sahkari Awas  Samiti
Ltd. for non-compliance of the order. The National  Commission  has  rightly
declined to exercise the power under Section 21 of the Act to set aside  the
order dated 30.7.2013 of  the  State  Commission  as  no  second  appeal  is
provided against the order of the State Commission in view of sub-Section  2
of Section 27A of the Act, which states as under :-

"27A. Appeal against order  passed  under  Section  27.-(1)  Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2  of  1974),  an
appeal under Section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from -

the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission;
the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and
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......"


From the reading of the above provisions  of  the  Act,  it  is  clear  that
against the order passed by the District Forum  under  Section  27A  of  the
Act, appeal lies to the State Commission and against the order of the  State
Commission, the appeal lies to the National Commission and against order  of
the National Commission, the appeal lies  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  sub-
section 2 of the Act states that 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 as the case may be.   Therefore,  we  have  to  hold
that the order passed by the National Commission  in  holding  that  appeals
filed by the appellant is not maintainable, is legal and valid and does  not
call for interference by this Court. The petition filed  under  Article  136
of the Constitution of India seeking leave to file appeal against the  order
of the National Commission is also not maintainable in law, however we  have
to interfere with the order of the State Commission only to  the  extent  in
not remanding the case to  the  District  Forum  for  passing  an  order  in
accordance with law, in not doing so, the right accrued  in  favour  of  the
appellant will be lost and therefore, we have to pass appropriate  order  in
this regard .

Having regard to the fact situation  that the appellant, who is a  consumer,
has been litigating the matter before the District Forum,  State  Commission
and the National Commission for the last 17  years  to  get  her  legitimate
right of getting the sale deed registered in respect of  the  allotted  site
made by the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. in  her  favour  who  is  its
member since 1962, therefore, we deem it proper to exercise our power  under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India  for  the  reason  that  the  State
Commission has erred in not remanding the case to the District Forum,  after
it has found fault with the order of the District Forum  in  convicting  and
sentencing the officers of Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.  who  are  the
respondents herein for not following the procedure  as  provided  under  the
Criminal Procedure Code and for that reason we deem it just  and  proper  to
remand the case to the District Forum  with  a  direction  to  the  District
Forum to follow the procedure  under  Section  262  read  with  Chapter  XX,
Section 251 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  to  initiate  penal  action
against the respondents under Section 27 of the Act for  non  compliance  of
the statutory provisions.

It is also needless to mention in this order that no remedy is available  to
the appellant against the order of the District Forum even under Section  24
of the Act for the reason that the order passed  by  the  State  Commission,
which was not interfered  with  by  the  National  Commission  holding  that
second  appeal  is  not  maintainable  against  the  order  of   the   State
Commission.  Further, the order passed by  the  State  Commission  is  under
Section 27A of the Act in the appeal against the order  dated  30.7.2013  of
the District Forum which under  Section  27(2)  of  the  Act  convicted  and
sentenced  the  respondents   in   the   execution   proceedings   for   non
implementation of the order dated 17.10.2003 passed by  the  District  Forum
on the original complaint. Therefore, this Court in  exercise  of  power  of
this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the order of  the
State Commission is modified to the extent of  remanding  the  case  to  the
District Forum to execute the decree  and  take  penal  action  against  the
respondents by following the procedure under Section 262 read  with  Chapter
XX and Section 251 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  in  accordance  with
law.

Further, it is needless to observe in this order that apart from  initiating
proceedings under Section 27 of the  Act,  the  alternative  right  is  also
available to the appellant to execute the order of  the  District  Forum  by
invoking the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure,  1908  under  Order  XXI
read with the Rule 32 for seeking direction to the respondents to  get  sale
deed in respect of the Plot No. 114, Village Khoda,  Ghaziabad  executed  by
the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and register the same before the Sub-
Registrar and put her in possession of  the  same  in  accordance  with  the
aforesaid provisions. The execution of the decree in the aforesaid terms  is
permissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 13(4), (6)  and  (7)
of the Act, as the provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32 of Code  of
Civil  Procedure  are  applicable  to  the  District  Forum  to  follow  the
procedure for execution of the order passed by it. In view of the  aforesaid
provisions of the Act, the provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32  of
Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable in the execution proceedings  before
the District Forum for executing the orders passed on the complaint  of  the
appellant to get the fruits of the same in the absence of either express  or
implied exclusion of Code of Civil Procedure to execute  the  order  of  the
District  Forum.  The  said  provisions  of  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  are
applicable to the procedure for disposal of the complaints by  the  District
Forum not  only  in  relation  to  the  matters  enumerated  under   Section
13(4),(6) and (7) of the Act but the  other  provisions  of  Code  of  Civil
Procedure viz. Order XXI read with the Rule 32 are applicable for  execution
of the order of the District Forum and to give effect to  the  order  passed
by it on the complaint as the same will  be  in  the  nature  of  decree  as
defined under Code of Civil Procedure as the  procedure  contemplated  under
the said order read with Rule 32 which is a substantial procedural right  of
the appellant and the same can be invoked by her as the decree holder.

 In addition to above, the alternative  remedy  is  also  available  to  the
appellant to take  penal  action  against  the  concerned  officers  of  the
Navchetna Sahkari  Awas  Samiti  Ltd.  under  Section  27  of  the  Act  and
therefore, she is at liberty to avail the said remedy also if she  wants  to
get the decree dated 17.10.2003 executed by the District Forum as  the  same
has attained finality in her favour.


 With the aforesaid observation and direction  to  the  District  Forum  and
liberty to the appellant, we allow these appeals to the above  said  extent.
No costs.
      .....................................................................J.

                                                           [V. GOPALA GOWDA]




         ..................................................................J.
                                                              [R. BANUMATHI]


New Delhi,
February 10, 2015