Flouting consumer court order can land you in jail

Consumer Protection Act provides for both civil and criminal proceedings

After a consumer court gives its verdict on a complaint, it is necessary to ensure its compliance by the parties involved. The Consumer Protection Act provides for civil as well as criminal remedies against a person who fails to obey a court order. The civil remedy available under section 25 of the Act provides for recovery of a decretal amount. The procedure is that the consumer forum issues a recovery certificate, which is sent to the district collector concerned for execution to recover the money due as arrears of land revenue. The criminal provisions under section 27 provide for penalising the party guilty of disobeying the order, in monetary and non-monetary terms.

The question that came before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was whether a consumer can directly initiate criminal proceedings under section 27 without first availing of the civil remedy under section 25. This issue has been dealt with by the national commission in a judgment delivered on Friday by Justice K S Chaudhari in Hemangi Harishchandra Gund and another versus Shrinivgas Trimbak Joshi and another.

Joshi had filed a complaint against Gund before a district consumer forum. Gund was held liable to pay Rs 4,80,000 along with interest at 18 per cent per annum and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. In appeal, the Maharashtra state commission upheld the order, but reduced the rate of interest from 18 per cent to 12 per cent.

But Gund refused to comply with the order. Joshi filed execution proceedings before the district forum, which sentenced Gund to imprisonment for a period of six months for disobeying of its order. Gund moved to the state commission challenging the sentence of imprisonment, but the appeal was dismissed with further penalty of Rs 1,000.

Gund finally approached the national commission in revision. The main argument was that the criminal proceedings ought not to have been initiated without first exhausting the civil remedy for recovery of the decretal amount.

The national commission observed that Section 25 and Section 27 are independent. When there is non-compliance of an order, it is up to the consumer to choose under which section he wants to proceed for disobedience of the order. There is no stipulation under the Consumer Protection Act that a complainant can have recourse to provisions of section 27 only after he has exhausted the remedy under section 25 of the Act.

The national commission concluded that the objections going beyond the original order cannot be considered by executing court. Since the order had been disobeyed, the commission held that the sentence of six months simple imprisonment had been rightly awarded and could not be faulted. Gund's revision petition was dismissed. It is the penal provision that gives teeth to the consumer fora to enforce compliance of the orders. The fear to being imprisoned is a forceful tool. The provisions of section 27 act as a deterrent to those manufacturers, traders, or service providers who think they are above the law.

The author is a consumer activist