S.H.VIJAYANTHI Vs. A.B.ANANTHA PADMANABAN

JUDGEMENT

(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 Judgment Debtors.

(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.