SHINTO P KURIAN Vs. SHANTHA HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent filed Annexure - A complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki for an order directing third respondent therein not to change the water connection available to her home and for a further direction that she shall be furnished with water supply unobstructed and also for a damages of Rupees Ten thousand and a cost of Rupees three thousand. In Annexure - A complaint it is alleged by the first respondent that her water connection is being obstructed by the third respondent shown therein. Annexure - B order was passed in the said petition on 04/06/2010, directing notice to the respondents and restraining the respondents from disconnecting the water connection of the first respondent. Annexure - C petition was thereafter filed by the first respondent under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act contending that in violation of Annexure - B order, on 06/06/2010 at about 2 p.m., third respondent, along with the Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constables, disconnected the water connection. It was also alleged that when Annexure - B order was shown to the Sub Inspector, first respondent was abused and on 07/06/2010 at about 11 a.m., respondents reconnected the water connection. It is contended that disconnection of the water supply is punishable under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act. In the proceedings initiated as ST No. 33/2010 under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Redressal Forum passed Annexure - D order incorporating the petitioner, Sub Inspector of Police, in the array of accused. The order reads:

(2.) Sub-s.(1) of S.27 of Consumer Protection Act provides that where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commissioner, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Sub-section (2) of S.27 of Consumer Protection Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the trial of offences under the Act and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on which the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the purpose of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (3) provides that all offences under the Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.

(3.) It is clear from sub-section (1) of S.27 of Consumer Protection Act that where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, such triable person or the complainant can be prosecuted as provided under S.27(1) of Consumer Protection Act and when the power is so exercised, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is deemed to be treated as a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, having the powers conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the power under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act is exercised in accordance with law by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Commission or the District Forum, the District Forum or the State Commission shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and is competent to exercise the power available under S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.