Execution Application in consumer forum( if OP is a LADIES)
5 years ago
i have filed a execution application against the consumer forum (narnaul) order, in which opposite party is directed to pay 10 lac rs to me with 10% interest rate. But she do not pay me any amount. and she donot have property to her name. President(Judge) asking me to file property details of her, i checked at tehsil but she do not have any propery. No i gave an application to Judge for her imprisonment( civil jail) for not obeying the order but the Judge gave my application back and said that we can not take any such type of action against the opposite party as she is a WOMEN. And now saying me to withdraw the execution application. What can i do now ? we can not do any action if the opposite party is a ladies. Confused.
CONSUMER COURT NARNAUL (HARYANA)
A.Dear Sir,
As per following judgment she is liable for imprisonment read with section 27 of Consumer Act
============================================================================================================
Madras High Court
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 97 CompCas 782 Mad
Author: A B Khadiri
Bench: B A Khadiri
JUDGMENT Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.
1. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in E.P. No. 17 of 1998 in O.P. No. 320 of 1996 on
the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras.
2. This petition has arisen in this way :
The first respondent filed O. P. No, 320 of 1996, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (South), Madras, against the petitioners herein, for refund of certain sum of
money, The redressal forum passed orders on December 13, 1996, whereunder the petitioners were
directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,280 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way
of compensation with cost Rs. 500. The petitioners did not make any payment and therefore, the
complainant instituted execution proceedings in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. In that E.P., the Consumer
Redressal Forum passed orders sentencing the first petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months. Now, the petitioners have come forward with the instant petition to quash
the proceedings.
The only contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a woman and as per the
provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman is not liable to be arrested in
execution of a money decree.
3. Heard both the counsel. Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, recites as under :
"56. Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for
money.--Notwithstanding anything in this part, court shall not order the arrest or detention in the
civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money."
4. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under :
"25. Enforcement of orders by the forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.--Every
order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be
enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may
he, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and
it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send,
in the event of its inability to execute it such order to the court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction :
(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 1
(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon,
the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it
for execution."
5. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under :
"27. Penalties.--Where a trade or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant
fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three
years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten
thousand rupees, or with both :
Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case
may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence offen
prisonment or fine, or both, for a term less than the minimum term and the amount less than the
minimum amount, specified in this section."
6. It is needless to point out that the Consumer Redressal Forum has passed a money decree and
that decree was sought to be executed in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. But the Consumer Redressal Forum
has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for one month on the first petitioner under Section 27 of
the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited several authorities before me
to lay stress that the proceedings shall be quashed. But the decisions do not apply to the facts of the
instant case. In Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills v. Fareed
Bawa , my learned brother P. Sathasivam J. has held that no compensation can be awarded where
loss has not been proved. This is a factor touching the merits of the matter. An ex parte decree has
been passed against the petitioners and therefore, if at all the petitioners can raise such a point, the
petitioners have to do it before the appellate authority.
7. The next series of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the
point whether the means of the petitioner have to be ascertained before proceeding with the
execution of a civil money decree. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, , his Lordship V.R.
Krishna Iyer J. has held that the simple default to discharge is not enough, that there must be some
element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the
past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it, that the provision
emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand
verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. This has been reiterated in
Anuma Gounder v. Ponnusami [1981] 2 MLJ 229, wherein it has been observed that the judgment
debtor should be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be arrested and put in the
civil prison as contemplated by Order 21, rule 40(1) of the Code. The view expressed by His
Lordships V.R. Krishna Iyer J. referred to above in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, has
been reiterated in Kunchumerra Rawther Ali Rawther v. Mathai Thomas, , and in Alagappan v.
Rajaguru and Co. [1985] MLJ 331. These are all factors touching the execution of the money decree
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 2
passed by a civil court. Of course, it is settled law that by virtue of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure
Code, a woman cannot be subjected to arrest in execution of a money decree.
8. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the arrest of the first petitioner in the execution
proceedings. She had been sentenced to imprisonment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection
Act. Learned counsel has referred to a decision in Joint Secretary, Gujarat Seed. Education Board v.
Dakshaishwarlal Dhorajiya [1993] 1 CPR 203, where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad has held that before an order can be passed under Section 27
of the Consumer Protection Act, show-cause notice should be issued against the concerned person
who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the redressal forum. That is not the point raised before
me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point is that the first petitioner is a woman
who should not be subjected to arrest. In Vikmans v. Rakesh Kumar [1992] 1 CPR 287, the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi has observed that the proceedings under
Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are criminal in nature. A plain reading of the section
itself would show that the section is punitive. It mentions penalty in the form of imprisonment and
levy of fine. Therefore, when it comes to criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the Criminal
Procedure Code differentiates between a man and a woman as done under Section 56 of the Civil
Procedure Code, a person whether man or woman is liable for punishment for violation of the order
passed by the forum. Therefore, the principles of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied to the
punitive provision of the Consumer Protection Act. I do not find that this matter can be admitted.
This petition is rejected.
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
===========================================================================================================
Section 27 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
27. Penalties.— 95 [
(1) ] Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made 2[or the complainant] fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person 96 [or complainant] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both: 97 [***]
98 [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.]
As per following judgment she is liable for imprisonment read with section 27 of Consumer Act
============================================================================================================
Madras High Court
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 97 CompCas 782 Mad
Author: A B Khadiri
Bench: B A Khadiri
JUDGMENT Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.
1. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in E.P. No. 17 of 1998 in O.P. No. 320 of 1996 on
the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras.
2. This petition has arisen in this way :
The first respondent filed O. P. No, 320 of 1996, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (South), Madras, against the petitioners herein, for refund of certain sum of
money, The redressal forum passed orders on December 13, 1996, whereunder the petitioners were
directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,280 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way
of compensation with cost Rs. 500. The petitioners did not make any payment and therefore, the
complainant instituted execution proceedings in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. In that E.P., the Consumer
Redressal Forum passed orders sentencing the first petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months. Now, the petitioners have come forward with the instant petition to quash
the proceedings.
The only contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a woman and as per the
provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman is not liable to be arrested in
execution of a money decree.
3. Heard both the counsel. Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, recites as under :
"56. Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for
money.--Notwithstanding anything in this part, court shall not order the arrest or detention in the
civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money."
4. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under :
"25. Enforcement of orders by the forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.--Every
order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be
enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may
he, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and
it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send,
in the event of its inability to execute it such order to the court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction :
(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 1
(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon,
the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it
for execution."
5. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under :
"27. Penalties.--Where a trade or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant
fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three
years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten
thousand rupees, or with both :
Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case
may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence offen
prisonment or fine, or both, for a term less than the minimum term and the amount less than the
minimum amount, specified in this section."
6. It is needless to point out that the Consumer Redressal Forum has passed a money decree and
that decree was sought to be executed in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. But the Consumer Redressal Forum
has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for one month on the first petitioner under Section 27 of
the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited several authorities before me
to lay stress that the proceedings shall be quashed. But the decisions do not apply to the facts of the
instant case. In Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills v. Fareed
Bawa , my learned brother P. Sathasivam J. has held that no compensation can be awarded where
loss has not been proved. This is a factor touching the merits of the matter. An ex parte decree has
been passed against the petitioners and therefore, if at all the petitioners can raise such a point, the
petitioners have to do it before the appellate authority.
7. The next series of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the
point whether the means of the petitioner have to be ascertained before proceeding with the
execution of a civil money decree. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, , his Lordship V.R.
Krishna Iyer J. has held that the simple default to discharge is not enough, that there must be some
element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the
past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it, that the provision
emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand
verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. This has been reiterated in
Anuma Gounder v. Ponnusami [1981] 2 MLJ 229, wherein it has been observed that the judgment
debtor should be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be arrested and put in the
civil prison as contemplated by Order 21, rule 40(1) of the Code. The view expressed by His
Lordships V.R. Krishna Iyer J. referred to above in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, has
been reiterated in Kunchumerra Rawther Ali Rawther v. Mathai Thomas, , and in Alagappan v.
Rajaguru and Co. [1985] MLJ 331. These are all factors touching the execution of the money decree
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 2
passed by a civil court. Of course, it is settled law that by virtue of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure
Code, a woman cannot be subjected to arrest in execution of a money decree.
8. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the arrest of the first petitioner in the execution
proceedings. She had been sentenced to imprisonment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection
Act. Learned counsel has referred to a decision in Joint Secretary, Gujarat Seed. Education Board v.
Dakshaishwarlal Dhorajiya [1993] 1 CPR 203, where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad has held that before an order can be passed under Section 27
of the Consumer Protection Act, show-cause notice should be issued against the concerned person
who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the redressal forum. That is not the point raised before
me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point is that the first petitioner is a woman
who should not be subjected to arrest. In Vikmans v. Rakesh Kumar [1992] 1 CPR 287, the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi has observed that the proceedings under
Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are criminal in nature. A plain reading of the section
itself would show that the section is punitive. It mentions penalty in the form of imprisonment and
levy of fine. Therefore, when it comes to criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the Criminal
Procedure Code differentiates between a man and a woman as done under Section 56 of the Civil
Procedure Code, a person whether man or woman is liable for punishment for violation of the order
passed by the forum. Therefore, the principles of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied to the
punitive provision of the Consumer Protection Act. I do not find that this matter can be admitted.
This petition is rejected.
Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999
===========================================================================================================
Section 27 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
27. Penalties.— 95 [
(1) ] Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made 2[or the complainant] fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person 96 [or complainant] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both: 97 [***]
98 [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.]
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Nirmal Chopra
Responded 5 years ago
A.Consumer protection Act provides for either recovery of amount from the opposite party or imprisonment in lieu thereof.Act doesn't make a distinction between male and female. There is no provision in the act granting exemption to females from imprisonment. Therefore let the consumer court decide the application instead of withdrawing it.If the same is rejected, then remedy of State Commission Chandigarh NCDRC Delhi and supreme court is available Moreover even otherwise the opposite party is not paying.But when she will sent to jail, she will most probably pay the amount involved
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
Delay in work by interior designer and not providing copy of contract
Dear Sir,
You may get issue a legal notice or approach Police and settle the matter failing which approach Consumer Court.
Refund against service provide | study abroad consultancy
Dear Client,
In the absence of a refund policy on cancellation of a contract midway, it may be a difficult task to get back the refund from the service provider. However, a service provider cannot de...
Order cancellation without user consent
Dear Client,
A sentence of your query is reproduced herein that forms a part of the terms and conditions of your order cancellation policy to address your query suitably. Qoute "However, <store name>...
Service center failed to repair the phone
Dear Client,
In the given scenario, serving a legal notice to the authorized service center, make an online complaint against them through e-daakhil portal ( https://edaakhil.nic.in/edaakhil/ ) introd...
Legal action on Byjus
Dear Client,
BYJUS being an educational service provider is accountable to its student customers for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Since the service provider is providing servic...
Read Blogs on Consumer Protection
Consumer Protection Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
