Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 224-225 OF 2015

  KAMLESH AGGARWAL                  ………APPELLANT

Vs.

NARAIN SINGH DABBAS & ANR.         ……RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her First Appeal  

Nos. 645 and 646 of 2013 vide order dated 8.1.2014 by  

the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  

New Delhi, purported to have been filed under Section  

21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short  

“the Act”), against the order dated 30.7.2013 passed  

by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  

Lucknow in Appeal Nos. 2082 and 2083 of 2010, the  

appellant  has  filed  these  appeals,  urging  various  

relevant  facts  and  legal  contentions  seeking  for  

setting aside the said order.

Page 2

2

2. The  brief  facts  of  the  case  are  stated  as  

under :-

The appellant filed a Complaint No. 24 of 1998  

before  the  District  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  

Forum,  Ghaziabad  (for  short  “the  District  Forum”)  

against  Navchetna  Sahkari  Awas  Samiti  Ltd.-the  

respondent  in  the  original  complaint,  for  not  

allotting  and  registering  plot  No.  114,  Village  

Khoda, Ghaziabad in her name as the Awas Samiti, in a  

resolution passed by it, cancelled the membership of  

the appellant from the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti  

Ltd. in default of payment by her.

3. The  District  Forum  vide  its  order  dated  

17.10.2003 after conducting an enquiry as provided  

under  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  accepted  the  

complaint of the appellant and directed the Navchetna  

Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. to allot the said plot in  

favour of the appellant and also to register the same  

in her favour within 3 months from the date of the  

order.

4. Since,  there  was  non  compliance  of  the  order  

dated  17.10.2003,  the  appellant  filed  Execution

Page 3

3

Petition before the District Forum to execute the  

order  and  requested  it  to  punish  the  respondents  

under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. In the said case  

one Gulab Singh (the alleged subsequent allottee of  

the plot in question) filed an application in the  

above proceedings for impleadment before the District  

Forum as he was in the possession of the plot in  

question, which was allotted by the respondents and a  

Civil Suit No. 1510 of 2005 filed by him was pending  

in the Civil Court. The District Forum vide its order  

dated 13.9.2006 held that the order dated 17.10.2003  

is null and void. It was further held by the District  

Forum that the appellant should approach the Civil  

Court and only after the rejection of the suit of  

Gulab  Singh  in  the  Civil  Court  the  execution  

proceedings will be heard by the District Forum and  

pass appropriate order and rejected the application  

of impleadment of Gulab Singh.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2006 of  

the  District  Forum,  the  appellant  filed  Appeal  

No. 2636 of 2006 before the State Consumer Disputes  

Redressal  Commission,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Lucknow  (for

Page 4

4

short “the State Commission”). The State Commission  

has passed an order dated 7.9.2007 holding that it  

was not open for the District Forum to review the  

same  matter  on  merits  at  the  instance  of  the  

impleading applicant and declare its earlier decree  

as null and void. Thus, the State Commission allowed  

the appeal of the appellant and directed the District  

Forum  to  proceed  afresh  with  the  execution  

proceedings.

6. The  said  order  dated  7.9.2007  of  the  State  

Commission was not challenged by the respondents, but  

Gulab Singh filed Revision Petition No. 4069 of 2007  

before  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  

Commission,  New  Delhi  (for  short  “the  National  

Commission”) against the said order.  

7. The National Commission, having found either no  

illegality  or  material  irregularity  in  the  order  

dated  7.9.2007  passed  by  the  State  Commission,  

dismissed the Revision Petition of  Gulab Singh on  

12.8.2008 by observing that the State Commission was  

fully justified in allowing the appeal filed by the  

appellant and setting aside the order dated 13.9.2006

Page 5

5

passed by the District Forum.

8. The appellant filed the application for execution  

of the order dated 17.10.2003 before the District  

Forum. On 29.5.2010, the District Forum allowed the  

execution petition directing for compliance of the  

order  dated  17.10.2003.  It  further  directed  to  

provide alternate plot as a replacement for the plot  

in question to the appellant and if there is no plot  

available, in that circumstances, to pay the amount  

as compensation to the appellant at the current rate  

equivalent to the area of the plot in question.

9. The respondents filed review application before  

the District Forum in Execution Case No. 96 of 2010  

for review of order dated 29.5.2010. The District  

Forum vide its order dated 26.11.2010 dismissed the  

review application and found the respondents guilty  

for non-compliance of order dated 17.10.2003 passed  

in Complaint Case No. 24 of 1998 and ordered for  

three months imprisonment of the respondents along  

with  penalty  amount  of  Rs.3000/-  payable  by  them  

under provisions of Section 27 of the Act.  

10. Being  aggrieved  by  the  abovesaid  order,  the

Page 6

6

respondents filed Appeal Nos. 2082 and 2083 of 2010  

before the State Commission which were allowed by its  

order  dated  30.7.2013  by  setting  aside  the  order  

dated 26.11.2010 of the District Forum. The State  

Commission observed that the District Forum has not  

adopted the procedure of summary trial at the time of  

passing the order of conviction and sentence imposed  

upon the respondents as provided under the Criminal  

Procedure  Code,  1973,  for  non-compliance  of  order  

dated 17.10.2003. The State Commission also observed  

in its order that at no point of time the respondents  

were afforded an opportunity of being heard against  

the disobedience of the order dated 17.10.2003 of the  

District Forum, which is mandatory as per provisions  

of sub-clause (3) of Section 27 of the Act and it has  

to try them by following the summary procedure by the  

District Forum empowered as Judicial Magistrate of  

the First Class for the purpose of Code of Criminal  

Procedure. Thus, the State Commission has allowed the  

appeal  of  the  respondents  and  set  aside  the  

conviction and sentence order passed against them.

11. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated

Page 7

7

30.7.2013 filed First Appeal Nos. 645 and 646 of 2013  

before  the  National  Commission.  The  National  

Commission vide its order dated 8.1.2014 dismissed  

the appeals holding  that there is no provision in  

the Act regarding the filing of second appeal under  

Sections 27 or 27A of the Act; even under Section 21  

of the Act, a petition filed against the order passed  

under Section 27A of the Act could not be entertained  

by it as the appellant has no right and the National  

Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain  such  

appeal.  Hence,  these  appeals  are  filed  by  the  

appellant as she is aggrieved by the order of both  

the State Commission and the National Commission.

12. Mr.  Digendra  Sharma,  the  learned  counsel  

appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that  

the National Commission should not have dismissed the  

appeals of the appellant as the same would render the  

appellant  remediless  for  executing  decree  passed  

against  the  respondents  who  have  till  date  not  

complied with the order dated 17.10.2003 passed by  

the District Forum and even the same has not been  

challenged by the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.

Page 8

8

and therefore, the same has attained finality. It was  

further  contended  by  him  that  by  dismissing  the  

second  appeal  of  the  appellant,  the  order  dated  

17.10.2003 would become ineffective and she has not  

got the fruits of the order. The order passed by the  

District Forum in favour of the appellant, which has  

attained  finality  cannot  be  made  in-executable  on  

technical grounds. Even if the order of the District  

Forum in convicting and sentencing the respondents is  

found to be illegal, the State Commission ought to  

have remanded the matter to the District Forum with a  

direction  to  it  to  follow  the  procedure  and  pass  

appropriate order.

13. On the contrary, Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, the  

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

respondents  contended  that  the  appellant  has  the  

remedy of revision before the National Commission as  

available under Section 21(b) of the Act.

14. It was further contended by him that the District  

Forum should have followed the provisions of Criminal  

Procedure  Code  while  dealing  with  the  application  

filed by the appellant under Section 27 of the Act

Page 9

9

and passed the order and therefore he submits that  

the impugned order does not warrant interference by  

this Court.

15. We have heard both the learned counsel on behalf  

of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the  

case, we are of the view that the State Commission  

should have remanded the matter to District Forum  

after setting aside its order dated 26.11.2010 with a  

direction to proceed with the matter in accordance  

with the procedure contemplated under the Code of  

Criminal Procedure referred to supra for taking penal  

action against the respondents who are the concerned  

officers of Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. for  

non-compliance of the order. The National Commission  

has  rightly  declined  to  exercise  the  power  under  

Section 21 of the Act to set aside the order dated  

30.7.2013 of the State Commission as no second appeal  

is provided against the order of the State Commission  

in view of sub-Section 2 of Section 27A of the Act,  

which states as under :-

 “27A.  Appeal  against  order  passed  under  Section  27.-(1)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure

Page 10

10

1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under Section  27, both on facts and on law, shall lie  from –

the order made by the District Forum to the  State Commission; the order made by the State Commission to  the National Commission; and the order made by the National Commission  to the Supreme Court (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall  lie  to  any  court  from  any  order  of  a  District Forum or a State Commission or the  National Commission……”

From the reading of the above provisions of the Act,  

it is clear that against the order passed by the  

District Forum under Section 27A of the Act, appeal  

lies to the State Commission and against the order of  

the State Commission, the appeal lies to the National  

Commission  and  against  order  of  the  National  

Commission, the appeal lies to the Supreme Court and  

sub-section  2  of  the  Act  states  that  except  as  

aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any  

order of a District Forum or a State Commission or  

the  National  Commission  as  the  case  may  be.  

Therefore, we have to hold that the order passed by  

the National Commission in holding that appeals filed  

by the appellant is not maintainable, is legal and

Page 11

11

valid  and  does  not  call  for  interference  by  this  

Court. The petition filed under Article 136 of the  

Constitution of India seeking leave to file appeal  

against the order of the National Commission is also  

not maintainable in law, however we have to interfere  

with the order of the State Commission only to the  

extent  in  not  remanding  the  case  to  the  District  

Forum for passing an order in accordance with law, in  

not doing so, the right accrued in favour of the  

appellant will be lost and therefore, we have to pass  

appropriate order in this regard .

16. Having regard to the fact situation  that the  

appellant, who is a consumer, has been litigating the  

matter before the District Forum, State Commission  

and the National Commission for the last 17 years to  

get her legitimate right of getting the sale deed  

registered in respect of the allotted site made by  

the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. in her favour  

who is its member since 1962, therefore, we deem it  

proper to exercise our power under Article 142 of the  

Constitution of India for the reason that the State  

Commission has erred in not remanding the case to the

Page 12

12

District Forum, after it has found fault with the  

order  of  the  District  Forum  in  convicting  and  

sentencing  the  officers  of  Navchetna  Sahkari  Awas  

Samiti Ltd. who are the respondents herein for not  

following  the  procedure  as  provided  under  the  

Criminal Procedure Code and for that reason we deem  

it just and proper to remand the case to the District  

Forum  with  a  direction  to  the  District  Forum  to  

follow  the  procedure  under  Section  262  read  with  

Chapter  XX,  Section  251  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure  to  initiate  penal  action  against  the  

respondents  under  Section  27  of  the  Act  for  non  

compliance of the statutory provisions.  

17. It is also needless to mention in this order that  

no remedy is available to the appellant against the  

order of the District Forum even under Section 24 of  

the Act for the reason that the order passed by the  

State Commission, which was not interfered with by  

the National Commission holding that second appeal is  

not  maintainable  against  the  order  of  the  State  

Commission.  Further, the order passed by the State  

Commission is under Section 27A of the Act in the

Page 13

13

appeal  against  the  order  dated  30.7.2013  of  the  

District Forum which under Section 27(2) of the Act  

convicted  and  sentenced  the  respondents  in  the  

execution proceedings for non implementation of the  

order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the District Forum  

on the original complaint. Therefore, this Court in  

exercise of power of this Court under Article 142 of  

the Constitution of India, the order of the State  

Commission is modified to the extent of remanding the  

case to the District Forum to execute the decree and  

take  penal  action  against  the  respondents  by  

following the procedure under Section 262 read with  

Chapter XX and Section 251 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure in accordance with law.

18. Further, it is needless to observe in this order  

that apart from initiating proceedings under Section  

27  of  the  Act,  the  alternative  right  is  also  

available to the appellant to execute the order of  

the District Forum by invoking the provisions of Code  

of Civil Procedure, 1908 under Order XXI read with  

the Rule 32 for seeking direction to the respondents  

to get sale deed in respect of the Plot No. 114,

Page 14

14

Village Khoda, Ghaziabad executed by the Navchetna  

Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and register the same before  

the Sub-Registrar and put her in possession of the  

same in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. The  

execution of the decree in the aforesaid terms is  

permissible  in  law  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  

Section  13(4),  (6)  and  (7)  of  the  Act,  as  the  

provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32 of Code  

of Civil Procedure are applicable to the District  

Forum to follow the procedure for execution of the  

order  passed  by  it.  In  view  of  the  aforesaid  

provisions of the Act, the provisions of Order XXI  

read with the Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure, are  

applicable in the execution proceedings before the  

District Forum for executing the orders passed on the  

complaint of the appellant to get the fruits of the  

same  in  the  absence  of  either  express  or  implied  

exclusion of Code of Civil Procedure to execute the  

order of the District Forum. The said provisions of  

Code  of  Civil  Procedure  are  applicable  to  the  

procedure  for  disposal  of  the  complaints  by  the  

District Forum not only in relation to the matters

Page 15

15

enumerated under  Section 13(4),(6) and (7) of the  

Act  but  the  other  provisions  of  Code  of  Civil  

Procedure  viz.  Order XXI read with the Rule 32 are  

applicable for execution of the order of the District  

Forum and to give effect to the order passed by it on  

the complaint as the same will be in the nature of  

decree as defined under Code of Civil Procedure as  

the procedure contemplated under the said order read  

with Rule 32 which is a substantial procedural right  

of the appellant and the same can be invoked by her  

as the decree holder.

19.  In addition to above, the alternative remedy is  

also available to the appellant to take penal action  

against  the  concerned  officers  of  the  Navchetna  

Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. under Section 27 of the Act  

and therefore, she is at liberty to avail the said  

remedy also if she wants to get the decree dated  

17.10.2003 executed by the District Forum as the same  

has attained finality in her favour.

Page 16

16

20.  With the aforesaid observation and direction to  

the District Forum and liberty to the appellant, we  

allow  these  appeals  to  the  above  said  extent.  No  

costs.       ……………………………………………………………J.     [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                            …………………………………………………………J.   

[R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi, February 10, 2015