Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Aditya Developers, a partnership firm, was the judgment debtor in a decree passed by the Consumer Forum on 17/01/2007. The decree directed the petitioner to execute a sale deed of Flat No.303 in favour of the respondent, Manish Ranganath Thorat, and deliver possession upon the respondent paying the balance consideration. The decree required compliance within thirty days. The respondent filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging non-compliance. The petitioner objected on two grounds: (1) the application was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC, and (2) no offence was made out because the respondent never communicated readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration. The Consumer Forum rejected the limitation objection but did not address the second ground. The High Court noted that the Consumer Forum ignored a significant objection. To avoid delay, the High Court considered the objection on merits. The Court observed that the decree required simultaneous payment and execution. Without the respondent first notifying the petitioner of readiness and willingness to pay, the petitioner could not be said to have wilfully failed to comply. The Court held that the application under Section 27 was not maintainable as no offence was made out. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the respondent's application under Section 27.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Execution of Decree - Section 27 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Penalty for Non-Compliance - The decree directed the judgment debtor to execute a sale deed upon payment of balance consideration by the decree-holder. The decree-holder filed an application under Section 27 alleging non-compliance without first notifying the judgment debtor of readiness and willingness to pay. The Consumer Forum rejected the judgment debtor's objection that no offence was made out. Held that without such notice, the judgment debtor cannot be said to have wilfully failed to comply, and the application under Section 27 is not maintainable. (Paras 5-7) B) Consumer Law - Limitation - Section 468 CrPC - Applicability to Consumer Forum - The Consumer Forum held that Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The High Court did not disturb this finding as the petition was allowed on other grounds. (Para 4) C) Consumer Law - Duty of Consumer Forum - Consideration of All Objections - The Consumer Forum failed to consider the significant objection that no offence was made out under Section 27. The High Court, to avoid delay, decided the objection on merits instead of remanding. Held that Consumer Forums must consider all objections raised by the judgment debtor before proceeding under Section 27. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Forum could take cognizance of an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for non-compliance of a decree when the judgment debtor had no notice of the decree-holder's readiness and willingness to perform his part.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 19/08/2014, and dismissed the respondent's application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Law Points
- Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- limitation under Section 468 CrPC not applicable to Consumer Forum
- requirement of notice of readiness and willingness before execution of decree
- Consumer Forum must consider all objections raised by judgment debtor
