S.H.VIJAYANTHI Vs. A.B.ANANTHA PADMANABAN
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.B.Anantha padmanaban (Deceased) Proprietor
Click here to view full judgement.
N.KANNADASAN, J. -
(1.) In both the matters, a common question is involved as to the extent of
right of Decree Holder to proceed as against the legal heirs of the
(2.) Sec.25 and 27 are the provisions available in the Consumer Protection
Act, which are in the nature of Execution Proceedings, towards the
enforcement of the order of the District Forum, State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be. Sec. 25 visualize the
enforcement of such order by a civil process, as if they were a decree or
order made by the Court of law. Sec.27 confers a quasi criminal sanction
in the enforcement of the orders by way of punishment with imprisonment
or imposition of monetary penalties.
(3.) We have come across in many cases, the judgment debtors though they
are in a position to pay the decretal amount, but still they delay the
executions by filing frivolous objections. It is axiomatic that in India
the real trouble of a litigant starts after he obtains a decree. The
Legislature while enacting Consumer Protection Act was mindful of the
delays that are caused by the judgment debtors at the time of execution.
So it in its wisdom enacted Section 27, so that a decree holder if he so
wishes, can prosecute the judgment debtor, in case he fails to pay the
decretal amount. If the matter is viewed from this angle, it is evident
that sections 25 & 27 are in the nature of execution proceedings and
constitute independent remedies. The decreed holder can avail any of them
at his will. It does not mean, that he cannot avail of the other remedy,
if by availing of one remedy; he failed to recover the amount.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.