State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldip Raj Kaila vs Adarsh Kumar Sharma on 25 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.441 of 2011
Date of Institution : 07.03.2011
Date of decision : 25.04.2012
Kuldip Raj Kaila (Senior Citizen) son of late Sh.Wadhawa Mal, resident of
196/10, Kainthan, Dasuya- 144205 (District Hoshiarpur), Punjab.
...Appellant
Versus
Adarsh Kumar Sharma (Executive Officer), Municipal Committee (the then at
Municipal Committee Dasuya) now at Municipal Committee, Jagraon (District
Ludhiana).
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 11.11.2010 &
3.3.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Kuldip Raj Kaila (in person). JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT VERSION OF THE APPELLANT The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent. It was dismissed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short "District Forum"). The appellant had filed an appeal (F.A.No.1467 of 2004). It was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 30.7.2008 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The costs were payable to respondent No.1 i.e. Adarsh Kumar, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Alawalpur, District Jalandhar. This order had become final.
2. Thereafter Adarsh Kumar, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Alawalpur, District Jalandhar had filed execution application under Section 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act to recover the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the appellant. The appellant had filed written arguments raising certain objections. The learned District Forum vide order dated 11.11.2010 directed that certificate First Appeal No.441 of 2011 2 under Section 25(3) of Act be sent to the Collector, Hoshiarpur to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue in terms of order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the State Commission.
3. The appellant filed application for recalling the order dated 11.11.2010. This application was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 3.3.2011.
4. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
5. The submission of the appellant was that either execution application should have been filed under Section 25 or under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. It cannot be filed under both these sections. It was further submitted that the learned District Forum has resorted to remedy under Section 25(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act without resorting to the provisions under Section 25(i) and 25(ii). Hence it was prayed that appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 11.11.2010 and 3.3.2011 be set aside.
6. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
7. Admittedly, the judgment for which the execution application has been filed by the respondent is a final judgment passed in F.A.No.1467 of 2004 on 30.7.2008 (Kuldip Raj Kaila Vs. Adarsh Kumar and another). It is not an interim order. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:-
"25.Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission:- (1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-
compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum, or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such First Appeal No.441 of 2011 3 damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. (3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue."
8. Sub Section (1) of Section 25 reveals that it is applicable only to the interim orders and not to the final orders. Sub Section (2) of Section 25 is depending on Sub Section (1) of Section 25. However, Sub Section (3) of Section 25 is applicable even to the final orders.
9. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported as Masarat Islam Soharwardy Vs. Ashfaque Karim, I(2008) CPJ 414 (NC). It is observed by the Hon'ble National Commission in para 5 as under:-
"5. The order, which is sought to be executed, is not an interim order but a final order. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 25 relates to execution of interim orders and not final orders. Insofar as final orders are concerned, this Commission can only issue a certificate for the amount due from the respondent / Ashfaque Karim, Managing Director of Katihar Medical College, to the Collector, Katihar and the Collector is supposed to proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as land revenue is recovered. Consequently, no attachment order can be issued."
10. Since the order which is being executed in these proceedings is a final order, therefore, Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act will apply, which First Appeal No.441 of 2011 4 has been applied by the learned District Forum. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.11.2010 or 3.3.2011.
11. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
12. The arguments in this case were heard on 17.4.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon), Member April 25, 2012.
Davinder