BABU JOSEPH Vs. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this case challenges Ext. P5 order of the 1st respondent - Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam by which arrest warrant against the petitioner herein was ordered. 2nd respondent herein filed a consumer dispute in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. Petitioner is a distributor of LPG. 2nd respondent has applied for a gas connection in his house. When the application matured, the gas connection was not given. Various reasons were pleaded by the 2nd respondent in not giving the gas connection. Since the gas connection was not given 2nd respondent approached the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the application and directed the petitioner to give gas connection to the 2nd respondent and pay compensation of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved by the above order, petitioner filed appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, the appellate authority. In the appellate forum it was agreed that petitioner will give gas connection if the 2nd respondent executes a bond that he is not having connection from any other agency. The operative portion of the judgment as can be seen from Ext. P1 is as follows:

(2.) 2nd respondent appeared and filed a counter affidavit. According to the 2nd respondent, originally, the District Forum allowed the petition. In appeal, the matter was. settled; but, he did not respect the agreement. The only remedy, therefore, is to enforce the order of arrest and the order of arrest is perfectly legal. The only method of enforcing the order is to arrest and, in any event, the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court should not be used as the petitioner has deliberately violated the order. He did not even appear and pray for time. If he wanted more time to execute the order he could have done so. It is also argued by the 2nd respondent that he could have given the gas connection much more earlier as the Bharat Petroleum Corporation itself directed the petitioner to give the connection by letter dated 18.1.1996. Only because of the delay territorial limits were changed and even if there is no territorial jurisdiction, in view of the legally binding order of the Forum, he should have given the connection or he ought to have got permission from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and intimated the order. Petitioner has not taken any steps to implement the agreement. It was also submitted that if under S.25 there is no power, it should be considered as an order under S.27. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that orders of the Consumer Forum cannot be interfered with by this Court.

(3.) S.25 of the Act provides as follows: