Case Note & Summary
The case involves execution appeals filed by the decree holder, Kishore Bhardwaj, against a common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, which dismissed his execution applications filed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The underlying complaint (CC No. 394 of 2016) was decided on 17.04.2018, directing the opposite parties (M/s. Royale Empire and its partners) to either deliver possession of Flat No. 501 in Royale Apartments, Zirakpur, complete with occupancy certificate, upon payment of balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs, or in the alternative, refund the deposited amount with interest at 12% p.a., along with compensation and litigation costs. The decree holder filed EA No. 58 of 2020 under Section 27 (for penal action) and EA No. 81 of 2020 under Section 25 (for execution) alleging non-compliance. The State Commission dismissed both applications, holding that the decree holder must choose one remedy and cannot pursue both simultaneously. Aggrieved, the decree holder filed the present appeals. The National Commission observed that the State Commission's view was erroneous as proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 are independent and can be pursued simultaneously. The Commission set aside the impugned order and remitted the matters back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the parties to appear on 22.08.2025. The appeals were allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Execution of Orders - Sections 25 and 27, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Simultaneous Remedies - The decree holder filed execution applications under both Sections 25 and 27 for non-compliance of the State Commission's order directing delivery of flat possession or refund with interest. The State Commission dismissed the applications, holding that the decree holder must choose one remedy. The National Commission held that proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 are independent and can be pursued simultaneously; the decree holder is not required to elect between them. The impugned order was set aside and the matters remitted back for fresh adjudication (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Commission erred in dismissing execution applications filed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the decree holder can pursue both remedies simultaneously.
Final Decision
The National Commission allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned common order dated 11.09.2024, and remitted the matters back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.08.2025.
Law Points
- Execution proceedings under Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Sections 25 and 27
- are independent and can be pursued simultaneously
- non-compliance of consumer forum orders attracts penal consequences under Section 27
- the decree holder is entitled to enforce the order through execution without being compelled to choose between alternative remedies.
Case Details
2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 43
AE No. 73/2024, AE No. 74/2024, AE No. 75/2024, AE No. 76/2024
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Mr. Rajat Sangwa, Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Kishore Bhardwaj (in person), Mr. Ravinder Kumar (in person), Mr. Udit Mendiratta
Mr. Kishore Bhardwaj (through SPA holder) and Mr. Ravinder Kumar
M/s. Royale Empire, Mr. Jeewan Garg, Mr. Prince Garg
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Execution appeals against dismissal of execution applications under Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Remedy Sought
The appellant/decree holder sought enforcement of the State Commission's order dated 17.04.2018 directing delivery of flat possession or refund with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.
Filing Reason
Non-compliance of the State Commission's order by the opposite parties.
Previous Decisions
State Commission dismissed EA No. 58/2020 (under Section 27) and EA No. 81/2020 (under Section 25) vide common order dated 11.09.2024, holding that the decree holder must choose one remedy.
Issues
Whether the State Commission erred in dismissing execution applications filed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the ground that the decree holder must choose one remedy?
Whether proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 are independent and can be pursued simultaneously?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the State Commission's view that the decree holder must elect between remedies under Sections 25 and 27 is erroneous, as both provisions are independent and can be pursued simultaneously.
The respondent opposed the appeals, supporting the State Commission's order.
Ratio Decidendi
Proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are independent and can be pursued simultaneously; the decree holder is not required to choose between them. The State Commission's order dismissing execution applications on the ground of election of remedies was erroneous.
Judgment Excerpts
The said CC No. 394 of 2016 filed by the complainant / decree holder Kishore Bhardwaj was decided vide State Commission’s order dated 17.04.2018 in which following directions were issued...
The State Commission dismissed both the EAs vide the impugned common order dated 11.09.2024, holding that the decree holder must choose one remedy and cannot pursue both simultaneously.
We are of the considered view that the view taken by the State Commission is erroneous. Proceedings under Section 25 and Section 27 are independent and can be pursued simultaneously.
Procedural History
The complainant filed CC No. 394/2016 which was decided on 17.04.2018 by the State Commission. Thereafter, the decree holder filed EA No. 58/2020 under Section 27 and EA No. 81/2020 under Section 25 for execution. The State Commission dismissed both applications vide common order dated 11.09.2024. The decree holder filed the present appeals before the National Commission on 07.08.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 25, 27
.png)
