w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Techno International Polymers, Delhi & Another v/s M/s. Avani Textiles Ltd. Through Its Director, Punjab

    Revision Petition No. 368 of 2015
    Decided On, 09 March 2022
    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
    By, MEMBER
    For the Petitioners: Manoj Kumar Varshney, Proprietor. For the Respondent: Mohit Gulati, Vineet Bhagat, Advocates.


Judgment Text
1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 20.10.2014 of the State Commission in revision petition no. 31 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 06.06.2014 of the District Commission in execution application no. 18 of 2013.

2. The proprietor of the petitioner no. 1 firm is present in person for the petitioners. Learned proxy counsel is present for the respondent, and submits that he has instructions to advance arguments on behalf of the respondent.

Heard.

3. A perusal of the record shows that the consumer dispute was decided by the District Commission vide its Order dated 30.10.2009. In appeal, the State Commission, vide its Order dated 31.08.2012, partially modified the award. Revision filed against the Order of the State Commission was disposed of by this Commission vide its Order dated 16.12.2013. The Order dated 30.10.2009 of the District Commission, as modified by the Order dated 31.08.2012 of the State Commission, has accordingly attained finality within the meaning of section 24 of the Act 1986. Subsequent thereto, the complainant / decree holder (the respondent herein) filed execution application no. 18 of 2013 before the District Commission. The District Commission passed its Order dated 06.06.2014 in the course of the execution proceedings, which Order was assailed by the opposite parties / judgment debtors (the petitioners herein) before the State Commission by way of revision petition no. 31 of 2014 under section 17(1)(b) of the Act 1986. Aggrieved by the State Commission’s Order dismissing the revision petition, the instant revision petition no. 368 of 2015 has been preferred by the opposite parties / judgment debtors under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 before this Commission.

4. Execution proceedings under section 25(3) or section 27 of the Act 1986 are distinctively different from adjudication of a ‘consumer dispute’, they are separate independent proceedings. ‘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”). Jurisdiction of the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) is in relation to a ‘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 District Forum within the State - - -”). Remedy against an Order passed in execution proceedings, for ‘enforcement’ under section 25(3) or for ‘penalties’ under section 27 of the Act 1986, in execution of a final Order (decree) in separate independent proceedings, does not lie under section 17(1)(b) of the Act 1986.

5. We notice that vide its impugned Order of 20.10.2014, the State Commission has dismissed the revision petition after looking into the merits of the matter. However the correct legal position is that the revision did not lie in State Commission under section 17(1)(b) against an Order passed in execution proceedings. Thus, the State Commission, in entering into the merits, exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it. The State Commission ought to have dismissed the revision petition as being not maintainable.

6. We may also add that, similarly, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 does not lie against an Order passed by the State Commission under section 25(3) or under section 27 of the Act 2019 in execution proceedings.

7. The instant revision petition no. 368 of 2015 is disposed of with observations as given above in paras 4, 5 and 6. Needless to add, the District Commission shall continue with its proceedings in the execution application no. 18 of 2013 as per the law.

8. This Commission has not gone into the merits of the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
matter. As such, remedy can be sought by the opposite parties / judgment debtors in the appropriate forum or the appropriate court as per the law. 9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in this petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
O R