AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ramalingam, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration declaring Section 13(3) and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1966 as ultra vires and unconstitutional and also to call for the order made in E.P. No. 2 of 1991 in O.P. No. 11 of 1991, dated 4.9.1991 passed by the second Respondent and to quash the same.
Out of a complaint preferred by the third Respondent before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was taken on file as O.P. No. 11 of 1991, the State Commission gave a judgment on 25.4.1991 directing the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the third Respondent besides a sum of Rs. 500/0 as costs. It was ordered that if the payment is not made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the judgment, it is open to the complainant to move the Commission for appropriate orders u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called ''The Act'').
Aggrieved by the above judgment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the National Commission, New Delhi. The Petitioner also prayed for stay pending appeal. The stay petition (M.P. No. 51 of 1991) was dismissed by the National Commission on 9.8.1991. In the meanwhile, the third Respondent had filed E.P. No. 2 of 1991 before the State Commission for enforcement of its judgment. On the representation made by the Petitioner herein that an appeal to the National Commission had been filed, the execution petition was adjourned from time to time so as to enable the Petitioner to obtain stay. After the dismissal of the stay petition on 9.8.1991, E.P. No. 2 of 1991 was taken up by the State Commission. The Petitioner was granted time till 10.9.1991 to make a deposit of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- failing which it was ordered that the Petitioner will suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The Petitioner states that an order passed by the State Commission could be enforced only by having recourse to Section 25 of the Act, that proceedings u/s 27 of the Act being criminal in nature can be resorted to only when the judgment debtor is guilty of fraud, mis-representation, cheating etc., are not where a tortious liability is incurred. Sections 25 and 27 of the Act are as follows:
Section 25: Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such orders the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) in the case of an order against a company, where the registered office of the company is situated, or
(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or presently works for gain, is situated,
and thereupon, the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution.
Section 27: Penalties.--Where a trader or a person against when a complaint is made 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 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;
Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case as require, impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum amount, specified in this section.
The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the State Commission will have no option except to have recourse to Section 25 for the enforcement of its order. The Commission may either execute its order as if it were a decree of a Court or may forward the papers to a civil Court having jurisdiction. In the instant case, such a procedure has not been followed. But, on the contrary, in E.P. No. 2 of 1991, the State Commission has ordered imprisonment in case of default by the Petitioner to make the deposit of the amount. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Sections 25 and 27 of the Act provide two different modes for enforcement of the judgment at the choice of the State Commission. It is contended that on the same set of facts, the State Commission may either direct proceedings to be taken u/s 25 of the Act in, which case, the judgment-debtor will have ample opportunity to resist execution on the several grounds available under the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas, if the State Commission were to resort to Section 27 the judgment debtor would be constrained to comply with that order under the threat of imprisonment which would cause not only the loss of reputation but would also adversely affect the freedom of movement guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that this uncanalised power vested in the State Commission either the Board u/s 25 or u/s 27 of the Act is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is true that Section 25 provides for enforcement of the orders by the State Commission. But Section 27 is captioned as ''Penalties'' for noncompliance with the order of the Commission. Therefore, the object of the two sections are entirely different. Section 25 is intended to secure the benefits of the order which the complainant may obtain before the State Commission by enforcing the order and if the order is by a Civil Court. On the contrary, Section 27 is intended to punish a person who fails to comply not only with the judgment but also with any other order which the Commission may pass. That power to punish for disobedience or non-compliance with the orders of the State Commission has been devised to give strength and vitality to a forum created under a statute to redress the grievance of the consumers. The object of the enactment is to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and, for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers'' disputes and other matters connected therewith.
The contention of the Petitioner that at the choice of the Commission either resort to Section 25 may be made or the provisions of Section 27 may be invoked though appears to carry substance, yet, in reality, it can easily be seen that the State Commission and the District Forums under the Chairmanship of judicially trained persons of the cadre of District Judges or of High Court Judges could be expected to exercise their discretionary jurisdiction in the manner best to sub-serve the objects of the enactment. In the instant case, it is seen that after the judgment was delivered by the State Commission on 25.4.1991, the Commission has waited sufficiently long before passing the order in E.P. No. 2 of 1991 on 4.9.1991. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner had gone to the National Commission but failed to obtain an order of stay. In such circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the State Commission ordering E.P. No. 2 of 1991 giving sufficient time to the Petitioner to make a deposit failing which, for non-compliance with its order, the Petitioner is ordered to suffer simple imprisonment.
When u/s 27 of the Act, an order of imprisonment is made and it is suffered by the judgment-debtor, that would not give any solace to the complainant in whose favour the judgment is given. For enforcement of the judgment, resert to Section 25 may become necessary in the event of the judgment-debtor not making a deposit but choosing to suffer simple imprisonment. Therefore, Sections 25 and 27 contemplate different situations providing for two different remedies. In this view, the case of the Petitioner that Sections 25 and 27 vest arbitrary and uncanalised power in the Commission to choose either of the two Sections, has no substance.
The next submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is on the vires of Section 13(3) of the Act which is as follows:
No 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.
Section 18 of the Act states that Section 13 is applicable to State Commissions also. In Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 elaborate rules are made regarding the manner of taking evidence and enquiring into the complaint. It is in that context Section 13(3) imposes an embargo on any Court to question the validity of the said proceedings taken u/s 13(1) and (2) on the ground that principles of natural justice are violated.
The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the principles of natural justice are. embedded in the rules recognised by Courts otherwise called "Rule of Law" and that Rule of Law being the basic concept of our judicial system, should govern the proceedings before the Commissions and Forum and Section 13(3) of the Act in so far as it exempts the said forums and Commissions from the purview of observation of principles of natural justice should be held to be ultra vires the basic principles or rule of law. It has been very often held by the Supreme Court and by this Court that principles of natural justice cannot supplant the statutory provisions and in given cases and circumstances may supplement the statutory provisions. When there is a specific provision in the enactment stating that in a particular proceedings the principles of natural justice need not strictly be complied with but the procedure prescribed under the statutory provision should be followed, one cannot be heard to say that the statutory provisions must be struck down as being violative of the rule of law or, in other words, as being violative of principles of natural justice.
Further, a close reading of Section 13(3) shows that the proceeding before the forums and Commissions cannot be questioned in any Court on the ground that principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Since the forums and the State Commission as well as the National Commission, are not Courts in the strict sense but had been vested with certain powers of Civil Courts, like summoning and enforcing the attendances of witnesses, discovery and production of documents etc., and are deemed to be civil Courts only for the purpose of Section 155 and Chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would follow that if the District Forum or the State Commission have violated the principles of natural justice in their adjudication proceedings, in the appeal to be preferred before the hierarchy of the forums created like the State Commission or the National Commission, it would be open to the affected party to plead that the adjudication was in violation of principles of natural justice and such appellate forum would have jurisdiction to enquire into that issue because, u/s 13(3) only a Court is excluded from entertaining any such plea and not the forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner on the vires of Section 13(3) has to be repelled. No other point is raised. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.