G S Anandan vs E N Dileep , Queen V. Commissioner For Special Purposes Of The Income Tax , 1888 21 Qb 313

AN interesting question has been raised in the course of proceedings u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The question is, whether pendency of an appeal before the National Commission has the effect of making the order passed by the State Commission non -final within the meaning of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. In order to appreciate the question, only barest facts need be given. By an ex -parte order dated 22.8.96 this Commission directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,82,100/ - besides interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of various payments till date of refund besides Rs. 500/ - as costs. Respondents No. 2 & 3, who have also been impleaded as opposite parties, were held not personally liable to comply with the order as opposite party 1 was a Private Limited Company. It appears that the opposite parties have preferred an appeal against the said order before the National Commission. The complainant moved an application on 12.1.95 u/Section 27 with a prayer that the amount awarded had not been paid by the respondents and penal action envisaged u/Section 27 be taken against them. Besides the Regency Industries Ltd., Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Additional Managing Director and present Managing Director were impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

THE contention of Mr. Shivender Chopra, Advocate for the respondents, is that u/Section 24 the order of the District Forum or State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, becomes final only if no appeal there against had been preferred. He pointed out that admittedly, appeal against the order of the State Commission had been filed before the National Commission and the same was pending. The order of the State Commission, having thus not acquired finality, could not be executed or enforced. The contention of Mr. M.R. Chawla, learned Counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, is that it is settled law that mere filing of appeal does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against and admittedly, the National Commission had not granted any stay of the recovery of the amount in pursuance of the order of the State Commission. In a recent decision on Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Insitute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while noticing the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, made significant observations in para 12 of the report as under: "12. Having dealt with the meaning of the expression ''any commercial purpose'' in Section 2(d) in the light of the scheme of the enactment, it may be necessary to append a clarification to obviate any confusion. Section 24 declares that every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final". This section has to be read alongwith Sub -section (3) of Section 13. Section 13 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the District Forum on receipt of a complaint. Sub -section (3) of Section 13 says that "(N)o proceedings complying with the procedure laid -down in Sub -sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with". By virtue of Section 18 the procedure prescribed in Section 13 applies to State Commission as well. From the above provisions, it is clear that the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are final as declared in Section 24 and cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. The issues decided by the said authorities under the Act cannot be reagitated in a Civil Court, The said provisions make it equally clear that the Forums created by the Act fall in the second category of Tribunals mentioned in the The Queen v. Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income Tax, (1888) 21 Q.B. 313 at p.319) which decision had been repeatedly affirmed and applied by this Court which means that the Forums/ Commissions under the Act have jurisdiction to determine whether the complainant before them is a ''consumer'' and whether he has made out grounds for grant of relief. Even if the Forum/Commission decides the said questions wrongly, their orders made following the procedure prescribed in Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 cannot be questioned in a Civil Court - except of course, in situations pointed out in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 S.C.R. 662). They can and must be questioned only in the manner provided by the Act. (emphasis supplied)"

It is settled law that even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is binding. It follows that the finality of the order referred to in Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act is to be taken in the sense explained by their Lordships in the Laxmi Engineering Works''s case and pendency of the appeal in the next higher Forum or the Supreme Court against the order of the National Commission is no impediment in the order being executed or enforced in terms of Section 25 or Section 27 as the case may be. The objection raised by the respondent is, therefore, decided against them. To come up for further proceedings on 23.12.96. A copy of this order be given free of cost to both the parties. Objection decided.