At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners: Sehel Khan, Karan Sinha, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rajan Kumar Singh, Advocate along with Respondent in person.
Taken up through video conferencing.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners (the builder co. and its managing director) on admission. Perused the material on record.2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986, impugning the Order dated 08.10.2020 under Section 25(3) and the Order dated 05.08.2020 under Section 27 passed by the State Commission.3. Execution proceedings, to execute an Order that has attained finality within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act 1986, whether for ‘Enforcement’ under Section 25(3), or for ‘Penalties’ under Section 27, are distinctively different from adjudication of ‘consumer dispute’, are separate independent proceedings.4. ‘consumer dispute’ is defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act 1986(“ “consumer dispute” means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint”).5. Section 21(b), Jurisdiction of the National Commission, is in relation to ‘consumer dispute’ (“ - - - to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission- - -”).6. Remedy against an Order passed under Section 25(3), Enforcement, or under Section 27, Penalties, in execution of an Order that has attained finality (‘decree’), in the separate independent execution proceedings, does not lie under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986.7. It may also be seen here that an appeal against an order of the State Commission in the adjudication of ‘consumer dispute’ lies under Section 19 (Appeals), whereas an appeal against an order of the State Commission in penal proceedings under Section 27 does not lie under Section 19 (Appeals) but lies under Section 27A (Appeal against an order passed under section 27).8. In the light of the above examination, the revision petition, filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986, is dismissed as not maintainable.9. Needless to add, as the revision petition has been dismissed on maintainability, the merit per se of the State Commission’s impugned Orders has not been entered into, and also t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
hat the petitioners, if they so wish, are free to seek remedy as admissible under the law.10. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the State Commission, to the petitioners and to the respondent, within three days from today.