SHINY ANTONY RAUF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext.P1 order, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam ('District Commission', in short) had allowed the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Old Act'). Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram ('State Commission', for brevity). The State Commission has admitted the appeal and issued notice to the 3rd respondent. As there is no provision in the Act to stay the operation and execution of the order, the petitioner is precluded from filing such an application. However, the 3rd respondent has filed an execution application before the District Commission to execute the Ext.P1 order. On receipt of the summons in the execution application, the petitioner appeared through counsel and sought time to file her objections. Yet, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file an objection, the District Commission has issued Ext.P7 non-bailable warrant of arrest. Ext.P7 is ex -facie illegal and erroneous. Hence, the writ petition.

(2.) When the writ petition came up for consideration on 3/12/2024, this Court had called for a report from the District Commission to ascertain why Ext.P7 arrest warrant was issued despite the petitioner preferring an appeal before the State Commission.

(3.) Pursuant to the said order, the District Commission has submitted a report stating that the complaint was allowed by Ext.P1 order. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent filed E.A.No.51/2024, alleging that the petitioner has not complied with the order. Consequently, the District Commission issued a summons to the petitioner under Sec. 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ("New Act, for short). Although the petitioner appeared through Counsel, she did not state about the filing of the appeal and did not produce any order staying the operation of the Ext.P1 order. As the petitioner failed to comply with the directions in Ext.P1 order, the District Commission was constrained to issue Ext.P7 warrant of arrest. On 1/8/2024, the petitioner produced the interim order passed by this Court. The District Commission has transmitted the records in the complaint to the State Commission.