JANCY JOSEPH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges in this Original Petition S.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The further prayer is to declare that the petitioner being a woman cannot be arrested or detained by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, hereinafter referred to as "the Forum", exercising the powers under S.27 of the Act and for quashing Ext. P5 order of the Forum. The case of the petitioner is that she is a partner of the firm M/s. Geo Financiers, Thiruvalla. Complaining that the amounts deposited by respondents 4 and 5 had not been returned to them, they filed petitions before the Forum as O.P. Nos. 740/1993 and 102/1994. Both these complaints were accepted by the Forum and in O.P. No. 740/1993, the respondents therein were directed to pay the principal sum of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 15.6.1989 to 12.4.1992 and thereafter on the total amount of Rs. 65,768.87 and Rs. 300/- as cost within one month. In O.P. 102/1994, similarly the opposite parties were directed to pay the principal sum of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 25.6.1989 to 12.4.1992 and thereafter on the total amount of Rs. 29,330.95 and Rs. 250/- as costs, within one month. Since the amounts have not been paid within one month, respondents 4 and 5 filed execution petitions as E.P.Nos. 155/1995 and 154/1995. When notice was received in the execution petitions, the present petitioner raised an objection that she being a woman and the claim was for realisation of money, she cannot be arrested in exercise of the powers under S.27 of the Act. That contention was negatived by the Forum and by the impugned order Ext. P5 the Forum has taken the view that S.27 is in the nature of penal provision and that the provisions regarding execution of money decree cannot be attracted to this provision. Hence this Original Petition is filed for a declaration that S.27 of the Act is unconstitutional and arbitrary and for quashing Ext. P5 order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that S.25 and 27 of the Act prescribe the mode of execution of the order of the Forum. S.25 prescribes that the order can be executed by the Civil Court and also by the Forum as if it is a decree passed by the Civil Court. Hence, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable. S.27 of the Act gives an absolute power to the Forum to imprison any person or impose fine if the order is not complied with. According to the counsel, this is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The contention is that if procedure under S.25 of the Act is invoked, then the petitioner can get protection under the Code of Civil Procedure; while that is not available under S.27 of the Act. It is further submitted that so far as payment of money is concerned, it depends upon the means of the person to pay the amount. No person can be punished on the ground that such person has no means to pay the amount.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that S.27 has been enacted with a view that the orders of the Forum are complied with. A summary remedy is provided under S.27 with a penal provision. In the nature of the object and scope of the Act, it cannot be said that this section is arbitrary or discriminatory.