AVAS VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in the above mentioned appeals is whether the State Commission has the jurisdiction to pass interim orders for stay of operation of orders passed by the District Forum. He had been granting stay orders so far on the principles indicated in Order 41, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. Sec.13 of Consumer Protection Act, defines the extent to which provisions of C. P. C. apply to proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). It is true that provisions of Order 41, Rule 5 relating to stay of execution decree passed by the District Forum do not find place in Sec.13 nevertheless, I was entertaining stay applications and giving interim orders. Recently a decision rendered by the Gujarat Commission reported in 1992 (2) Consumer Protection Reporter page 516, came to my notice. The Appeal in that case arose out of an interim orders passed by the District Forum and Appeal was filed before the State Commission against that said order. The main question that arose before the State Commission was whether the District Forum has jurisdiction to pass interim orders even though provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C. P. C. were not made applicable by Sec.13 of the Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points so raised it is necessary to state certain basic principles relating to the nature of orders passed by State Commission and the powers of the State Commission under the Act. A close analysis of the Act indicates that it is a codifying Act. Such Acts are passed not merely to declare the law upon some particular point but to declare in the form of a code the whole law upon some particular subject. It is in-disputable that an order passed under the Act determines the rights of the parties. In regard to orders passed under the Act. It is clear that such orders are final expression of decision which so far as regards the State Commission conclusively determine the rights of the parties on any of the matter in controversy before the State Commission, Judgment means the statement given by the State Commission of the grounds of an order. it is thus obvious that when an order is passed under the Act a certain amount of sanctity attaches to judgment rendered by the State Commission. The judgment once signed is final and can not be altered. If any person is aggrieved by the order, he may file an Appeal before the State Commission. The question that arises in what is the effect of filing an Appeal before the State Commission re la ting to the order passed by the District Forum. By reference to Sec.24 of the Act, it has been contended that the moment an Appeal is filed the order of the District Forum is suspended and does not attain finality unless the Appeal against the order is decided. It is thus contended that the filing of an Appeal before the State Commission results in the automatic stay of the order under challenge. This aspect of the case was argued by counsel for parties from different aspects. The interpretation placed on Sec.24 of Act will mean that although an order has been passed adjudicating upon the rights of the parties it would be in a state of animated suspension the moment an Appeal is filed. The interpretation placed by Counsel for the parties will amount to this that on the filing of the Appeal, the order of the District Forum automatically gets suspended. As already observed above an order of the nature contemplated and passed under the Act finally determines the rights of the parties. The judgment rendered by the District Forum states reasons for recording it. The well-established principle relating to finality of decisions is that the order is final and is not open to be challenged or modified except when a clerical or arthmetical error has crept in the order. Having regard to the nature of the order which adjudicates and resolves the controversy between the parties it is apparent that finality attached to the order is not taken away merely by filing of Appeal against the order. It may be pointed out that under the Code of Civil Procedure an order or a decree is final but the operation of the said order or decree may be stayed if conditions contemplated by Order 41, Rule 5 C. P. C. are complied with. The points stated above clearly demonstrate that order passed by the District Forum retains it's finality unless it is modified or altered by the Appellate Court in exercise of powers under Sec.15 of the Act does not say anything more than this, that the order passed by the District Forum is subject to be set aside or modified by the State Commission. It is not possible for me to accede to the contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant that Sec.24 carries with it automatic stay of the operation of order under challenge. This argument of Counsel for the Appellant stands completely negatived when we compare the provisions of other statutes. In all statutes where there is provision for stay, such a power is specifically conferred on the tribunal. It has been conceded by the Appellant that the provisions of stay such as are contemplated in Order 4l, Rule 5 C. P. C.1908 have not been made applicable to proceedings under the Act. In this way orders passed by the District Forum which are appealed against to the State Commission do not stand automatically stayed by virtue of Sec.24 of the Act.

(3.) It has to be noted that every tribunal has inherent power to exercise such powers as are necessary for proper exercise of it's jurisdiction. This view is based upon the principle that power conferred on a tribunal carries with it the existence of all such ancillary powers as are necessary for the tribunal to function in a manner and for purposes contemplated by the Act.