A big story of the day-once order has been passed by the consumer forum neither forum can review its own order and change it nor can execution be stopped in any situation what so ever.

A very interesting story emerged from the facts in the matter before the Supreme Court of India in    Civil Appeal No. 224-225 of 2015 named as Kamlesh Aggarwal    Vs Narain Singh Dabbas & Anr.        

Kamlesh Aggrawal filed a Complaint No. 24 of 1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad against Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. 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 complainant from the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. in default of payment by her.

The District Forum vide its order dated 17.10.2003 after conducting an enquiry accepted the complaint and directed the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. to allot the said plot in her favour and also to register the same in her name within 3 months from the date of the order. Since, there was no appeal filed against the order dated 17.10.2003 Kamlesh Aggrawal filed Execution Petition before the District Forum to execute the order and requested it to punish the respondents under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. But at this stage one Gulab Singh 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 Nachiketa Sehkaari Aawas Samiti 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 complainant 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.Forum also rejected the application of impleading of Gulab Singh.

Appeal No. 2636 of 2006 was then filed by complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow 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 Thus, the State Commission directed the District Forum to proceed afresh with the execution proceedings.

The matter then went up to National Commission and then to Supreme Court which held-

1.      Consumer forum has no power to review its own order or to set aside order passed by it. Order so passed cannot be declared null and void by the same district forum.

2.      Further the order passed by the District Forum in favour of the complainant was not challenged by the opposite party and hence had finality under section 24 of the act, cannot be made in- executable on technical grounds.

3.      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

4.      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. In the present case it is clear that some mischief had been played by the officers concerned resulting into this situation

Finally Kamlesh Aggrawal 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 appellant,original complainant Kamlesh Aggrawal  at the current rate equivalent to the area of the plot in question.

Apart from initiating proceedings under Section 27 of the Act, She could invoke the 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, Village Khoda, Ghaziabad executed by the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd



Section 24 of Consumer Protection Act talks about the finality of the order and once the order is final; consumer has a right to get it executed. The question has been raised time and again as to under what circumstances execution of consumer court order can be stayed .National Commission has discussed this issue in the matter before it , Shreenath Corporation &Others v/s Nilkamal v. Patel &Others  referring to section 24,27 and 25 of the act .

Section 24 confirms that “every order of a District Forum ,the State Commission or National Commission shall ,if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provision of this act be final ’.This section does not talk of any stay or admission of the appeal ,hence  defendent  party just gets appeal registerd and claims for stay of execution of the order. Now the word ‘preferred ‘ requires interpretation.

National Commission relying upon number of judgments pronounced by the apex court on the issue held and explained in its judgment dated 5.8.2014 in the above referred case Of Shreenath Corporation -

“A person against whom an order is passed by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, fails or omits to comply with the order, he can be proceeded against under section 27 of the act even if he has filed an appeal against the order unless the said order has been stayed by the superior forum”

The basis of above holding by the National Commission rests on the various earlier judgments .Apex court in the case of Atmaram Properties v/s Federal Motors v11(2005) 1 SCC 705 had held-

“There was no bar against initiation of proceedings under section27 of the act merely on account of an appeal having been preferred by the aggrieved party.A prayer for grant of stay of proceedings or on execution of order has to be made specifically to the appellate court and court has a discretion to grant an order of stay or refuse. Merely preferring an appeal does not operate as stay on the decree nor on the proceedings in the court”

Further, even if order stayed from operation, it is not wiped up from existence.”

It’s clear from the above discussion that order remains valid till any adverse order to the same by any appellant court



Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.

Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,