When consumer forum can not take action for non compliance of its order?

The facts stated earlier would clearly show that the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable in the instant case. As a matter of record, I must say, in the earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition No. 4004/2012, this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the present petitioner against the respondent by the order dated 17/12/2012 observed that the order dated 17/01/2007 was so clear as to obviate the need for seeking an additional order of rescinding the decree dated 17/01/2007. These observations clearly implied that the decree dated 17/01/2007 after the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of the decree had been rendered inexecutable. Precisely, that was the reason why it was observed that there was no need for the petitioner to seek any order for recalling or rescinding the order or decree dated 17/01/2007 on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount within the stipulated time by the respondent.

8. Once it is found that the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable, the only conclusion that is possible would be that no offence is constituted, there being no obligation remaining on the part of the petitioner to be discharged under the law. The learned Members of the Consumer Forum have not considered this fundamental aspect of the whole matter and the result is of passing of an illegal and arbitrary order. The order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained in law. It must go and so the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 742 of 2015

Decided On: 16.08.2016

Aditya Developers

Vs.

 Manish Ranganath Thorat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre, J.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI) 1551

Print Page

Consumer Forums have powers of JMFC

Andhra High Court

Victory Projects And Another vs The A.P. State Consumer Disputes ... on 23 June, 2010

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. Writ Petition No.9450 of 2010
23-06-2010
Victory Projects and another
The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.V. PRABHAKARA RAO
For the Respondents: Mr. V.V. PRABHAKARA RAO
:Oral Order: (Per Sri GM, J)
This Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Prohibition to the respondent no.1-A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission prohibiting it from exercising the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, in the proceedings in E.A.No.23 of 2009 in CD NO.238 of 1993 on the file of the respondent no.1-the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission represented by its President, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are that a Consumer Dispute was raised by the respondents 2 to 14 against the petitioners alleging defect in construction of Flats. Upon consideration of the matter, the 1st respondent-A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.3000/- and that they paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- and sought some more time to satisfy the award. However, respondents 2 to 14 have filed E.A.No.23 of 2009 in CD No.238 of 1993 before the 1st respondent, under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( for short " the Act"), seeking to punish the petitioners for non- compliance of the aforementioned order dated 25-9-2008.
According to the petitioners, the order was partly complied with when a sum of Rs.75,000/- is deposited before the 1st respondent-Commission and that the 1st respondent-Commission instead of returning the EA No.23 of 2009 in CD No.238 of 1993 as not maintainable, took cognizance of the case even though the High Court or the State Government has not conferred the powers as provided under section 32 of the

Print Page