Case Note & Summary
The present Appeal Execution was filed under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by M.R. Saifi, M.I. Saifi, and Afsana Saifi (the Appellants/Judgment Debtors) against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, in Execution Application No. 12 of 2017. The State Commission had directed the Judgment Debtors to pay the remaining amount of approximately Rs.10,30,000/- to the Decree Holder, Amit Pandey, within three weeks, failing which coercive measures including non-bailable warrant and sealing of premises would be initiated under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Sections 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The background of the case involves a long-standing dispute where the Decree Holder had been fighting for his rights for eleven years. The State Commission noted that the Judgment Debtors had not complied with several earlier orders and had wrongly calculated interest, resulting in only Rs.25,63,351/- being paid instead of the approximately Rs.36,00,000/- due. The Appellants challenged this order before the National Commission. The National Commission, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the appeal. It observed that the State Commission's order was just and proper, and the Appellants had failed to show any illegality or perversity. Consequently, the National Commission dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Respondent/Decree Holder within four weeks. The application for waiver of costs (IA/4442/2025) was also dismissed.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Execution Proceedings - Section 73 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Appeal against order of State Commission in execution - The State Commission found that the Judgment Debtor had not complied with earlier orders and had wrongly calculated interest, leaving a balance of approximately Rs.10,30,000/- payable to the Decree Holder. The State Commission directed payment within three weeks and warned of proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the 1986 Act and Sections 71/72 of the 2019 Act, including non-bailable warrant and sealing of premises. The National Commission upheld the order, finding no merit in the appeal, and dismissed it with costs of Rs.25,000/-. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Commission's order directing payment of the remaining amount due and threatening coercive measures for non-compliance was justified in execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision
The National Commission dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Respondent within four weeks. The application for waiver of costs (IA/4442/2025) was also dismissed.
Law Points
- Execution proceedings
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019
- Section 73
- Section 71
- Section 72
- Section 25
- Section 27
- 1986
- Non-bailable warrant
- Sealing of premises
- Interest calculation
- Compliance of orders
Case Details
2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 48
Appeal Execution No.40 of 2024
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member
Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Mr. Vishal Agrawal (for Appellants); Respondent in person (through VC)
M.R. Saifi, M.I. Saifi, Afsana Saifi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal Execution under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against an order of the State Commission in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The Appellants (Judgment Debtors) sought to set aside the State Commission's order directing payment of the remaining amount and threatening coercive measures.
Filing Reason
The Appellants challenged the State Commission's order dated 03.07.2024 in Execution Application No.12/2017, which found that they had not complied with earlier orders and had wrongly calculated interest, leaving a balance of approximately Rs.10,30,000/- payable to the Decree Holder.
Previous Decisions
The State Commission had passed several earlier orders for compliance, which the Judgment Debtors failed to follow. The Decree Holder had been pursuing the matter for eleven years.
Issues
Whether the State Commission's order directing payment of the remaining amount and threatening coercive measures was justified in execution proceedings.
Whether the Appellants had complied with earlier orders and correctly calculated interest.
Submissions/Arguments
The Appellants argued that the State Commission's order was erroneous and should be set aside.
The Respondent (Decree Holder) supported the State Commission's order, highlighting the long delay and non-compliance by the Appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
In execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, the State Commission is justified in directing payment of the correct amount due and threatening coercive measures under Sections 25/27 of the 1986 Act and Sections 71/72 of the 2019 Act when the Judgment Debtor has failed to comply with earlier orders and has wrongly calculated interest. The appellate court will not interfere unless illegality or perversity is shown.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Appeal Execution has been preferred under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, assailing the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh...
In view of the fact that the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor has not ensured compliance with several earlier orders...
Otherwise, this court will ensure that proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act 1986 and Section 71/72 of the Act 2019 are initiated...
Procedural History
The Decree Holder filed Execution Application No.12 of 2017 before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh. The State Commission passed the impugned order on 03.07.2024. The Appellants filed the present Appeal Execution before the National Commission on an unspecified date. The National Commission reserved the order on 11.04.2025 and pronounced it on 19.06.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019: 73, 71, 72
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 25, 27
.png)
