“Interim Order” In Section 25(1) Of Consumer Protection Act 1986 Shall Now Be Read As “Any Order”: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court held that neither an Appeal nor a Revision against an Order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal filed against the Order of the District Forum in execution proceedings shall be maintainable before the National Commission.
The Supreme Court held that the word “interim order” in Section 25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall now be read as “any order” for the period from March 15, 2003 to July 20, 2020 with reference to all pending proceedings at any stage for execution of any order passed under the 1986 Act.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed by a society, assailing the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act shall be read as enumerated below for the period from 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 with reference to all pending proceedings at any stage for execution of any order passed under the 1986 Act.”
“Section 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.
(1) Where any 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, enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.”
The Bench also held that neither an Appeal nor a Revision against an Order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal filed against the Order of the District Forum in execution proceedings shall be maintainable before the National Commission.
AOR Lekha G.V. represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Jaideep Gupta represented the Respondents. Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Lawyers Jharna, and Shubham Singh Bhadouriya assisted the Court.
Brief Facts
The Appellant-society was aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission which allowed the Revision Petitions filed by the Respondents and set aside the Order of the District Forum in an Execution Petition, directing Respondent/builder to execute a deed of conveyance as prepared by the Court Commissioner in favour of the Appellant. The Execution Petition was filed by the Appellant seeking execution of the Order passed by the District Forum. The Respondent had acquired the development rights in 1995 for development of a housing project named ‘Palm Groves’. The Respondent secured the necessary approvals from the local authority in 1997 and a comprehensive brochure was issued, advertising the sale of flats in the said project.
Based on the promises made in the brochure, several prospective flat-buyers entered into individual agreements with the Respondent. The Appellant society comprising of flat purchasers, was formed by the Respondent under provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The Appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent and original land owners, alleging defects in construction and deficiency of service in not providing amenities and seeking direction against the builder/developer to execute the Deed of Conveyance in its favour and consequential relief of compensation and costs.
Issues for Consideration
The following two issues arose before the Apex Court for consideration –
I. Whether there is any drafting error in Section 25 of the 1986 Act, as existed post 2002 Amendment, in so far it relates to enforcement of final orders, if yes, whether the tools available for interpretation of statutes can be used to clarify the position, to bring the same in line with the spirit of the 1986 Act?
II. Whether a Revision Petition filed against an Order passed in execution proceeding can be construed as an Appeal?
Court’s Observations
With regard to the first issue, the Supreme Court noted, “At the cost of repetition, we may add that even prior to the 2002 Amendment Act and after the 1986 Act was replaced by the 2019 Act, different Fora have been empowered to enforce any order passed and not limiting the same to interim order only. Further, it is evident from the fact that remedy on civil side for enforcement of final order is not available under Section 25 whereas a complaint providing for criminal liability of the person not complying with the order was available.”
The Court said that for execution of any Order except where monetary compensation has been awarded, if provisions of the 1986 Act are considered, post the 2002 Amendment Act, there is no provision providing for enforcement of Orders.
“Even though the 1986 Act is a self-contained code, apparently, there being remedy, and earlier provisions providing for execution of order as a decree of civil court, the person in whose favor such an order is passed may have to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. This does not go with the spirit of the 1986 Act where informal procedure had been provided to make it more user friendly”, it added.
The Court was of the view that using different tools available for interpretation of statutes, in Sub-section (1) of Section 25 the words where ‘an interim order’ should be read as where ‘any order’.
“Towards the end of sub-section (1) and before words ‘may order the property…’, following line shall be deemed to be added ‘enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and’. This interpretation goes in line with what was being understood and applied by different fora even post 2002 Amendment in 1986 Act. This is evident from number of execution petitions filed, entertained and disposed of. Many are still pending”, it further observed.
The Court clarified that as there was anomalous situation in the language of Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act for the period March 15, 2003 to July 20, 2020, the provision shall be considered as applicable in all the pending execution petitions or proceedings arising therefrom at any stage.
“The fact cannot be lost sight of that in an execution petition certain factual aspects may have to be gone into. In some cases, calculations may be required. In the absence of even single appellate remedy, the aggrieved parties may have to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. We have not considered this aspect of the matter, as the issue was not raised. However, we leave it open to the authorities to examine the matter in the aforesaid light”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, requested the Chairman, NCDRC to examine the issue and take appropriate steps for expeditious disposal of the execution petitions pending at different stages, in exercise of its powers under Section 70(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
With respect to the second issue, the Court observed, “In case an order is passed by the State Commission in execution petition, no appeal will be maintainable before National Commission as Section 19 of the 1986 Act provides for limited remedy of appeal against an order passed by the State Commission to the National Commission.”
The Court remarked that since the execution of an Order passed by different fora under the 1986 Act will not be a matter of consumer dispute, even the suo motu exercise of revisionary powers is impermissible.
“In the case in hand, order passed in execution was challenged by the aggrieved parties by filing revision petitions before the State Commission, whereas the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. As the issues were considered in detail by the State Commission, the revision petitions so filed would be considered to be appeals against the order passed by the District Forum”, it added.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court enunciated that as no remedy will be available against the first appellate order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings filed before the District Forum, the aggrieved party will be at liberty to avail of the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
“Against an order passed by the District Forum in execution petition, an appeal shall lie to the State Commission under Section 15 of the 1986 Act with no further remedy of appeal or revision. … Against an order passed by the State Commission in the execution petition, no further appeal or revision shall lie”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals.
Cause Title- Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1023)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Lekha G.V. and Advocate Satyavikram Jagtap.
Respondents: Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Jaideep Gupta, AORs R. Sathish, Sureshan P., Kunal Chatterji, Advocates Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Deepinder Kaur, Anand Patvardhan, Anand Patvardhan, and Deepinder Kaur.