G S ANANDAN Vs. E N DILEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question has been raised in the course of proceedings u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The question is, whether pendency of an appeal before the National Commission has the effect of making the order passed by the State Commission non -final within the meaning of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. In order to appreciate the question, only barest facts need be given. By an ex -parte order dated 22.8.96 this Commission directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,82,100/ - besides interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of various payments till date of refund besides Rs. 500/ - as costs. Respondents No. 2 & 3, who have also been impleaded as opposite parties, were held not personally liable to comply with the order as opposite party 1 was a Private Limited Company. It appears that the opposite parties have preferred an appeal against the said order before the National Commission. The complainant moved an application on 12.1.95 u/Section 27 with a prayer that the amount awarded had not been paid by the respondents and penal action envisaged u/Section 27 be taken against them. Besides the Regency Industries Ltd., Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Additional Managing Director and present Managing Director were impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. Shivender Chopra, Advocate for the respondents, is that u/Section 24 the order of the District Forum or State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, becomes final only if no appeal there against had been preferred. He pointed out that admittedly, appeal against the order of the State Commission had been filed before the National Commission and the same was pending. The order of the State Commission, having thus not acquired finality, could not be executed or enforced. The contention of Mr. M.R. Chawla, learned Counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, is that it is settled law that mere filing of appeal does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against and admittedly, the National Commission had not granted any stay of the recovery of the amount in pursuance of the order of the State Commission. In a recent decision on Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Insitute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while noticing the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, made significant observations in para 12 of the report as under: