EXECUTION POWERS OF CONSUMER FORUM RESTORED

(Advocate S Selvakumar|Property advocates in Bangalore|Property lawyers in Bangalore)

After four years of losing its power the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in Karnataka has got back its teeth.In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the CPA and has said that the redressal agencies set up under the CPA are empowered to execute its orders on its own.Disposing off the petition filed by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society (VBHBCS) of Bangalore the Apex Court has virtually put an end to all the controversies surrounding the validity of CPA. This is a boon for consumers particularly of Karnataka, who were finding the orders worthless. 

The story goes back to 1999 when Karnataka high court in the case of Paramjit Singh, Union of India decided that Section 27 of the CPA was against the Constitution. Section 27 relates to enforcement of the orders of the Forum and Commission and the powers to imprison in case the orders are not followed. As a result the forums and commission in Karnataka lost their teeth thereby denying consumers the benefit of CPA.

The Government of Karnataka went on appeal in the Supreme Court against this order.In the meantime the (VBHBCS) also went on appeal against another order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka high court which had upheld the constitutional validity of the CPA. 

In its appeal, the VBHBCS has raised several issues questioning the constitutional validity of CPA. It argued that without amending Article 368 no forums can be created as it would result in conflict of decisions. Further it argued that Parliament could not enact the CPA by establishing forums which are substitutes of the civil courts for it struck at the independence of the judiciary.

Refusing to buy these arguments, Supreme Court has said that Parliament and State Legislatures are competent to create courts and tribunals as provided in Schedule VII of the Constitution. Referring the Section 3 of the CPA the court has ruled that the argument of VBHBCS is fallacious inasmuch as the provisions of the CPA are in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The CPA, the court said, supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the civil courts of other statutory authorities. 

Regarding the powers of the redressal agencies for execution of its orders, the Supreme Court has held that Section 27 is akin to Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.Further, the CPA is a self contained code and has power to execute their own order. Hence redressal agencies need not send all their orders to civil courts for execution. They have full powers to execute orders including imposing fine or imprisonment.

More,

Advocate Selvakumar 

Property transfer advisor