Lok Adalat Award Final And Binding; Consumer Complaint Not Maintainable: Kerala State Consumer Commission
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), D. Ajith Kumar (Judicial Member), and K.R. Radha-krishnan (Member), allowed a revision petition filed by Gurudeva Trust and set aside the order of the District Commission, holding that a dispute already settled through a Lok Adalat award cannot be reopened by filing...
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), D. Ajith Kumar (Judicial Member), and K.R. Radha-krishnan (Member), allowed a revision petition filed by Gurudeva Trust and set aside the order of the District Commission, holding that a dispute already settled through a Lok Adalat award cannot be reopened by filing a fresh consumer complaint for its enforcement.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Jayaprakash, had deposited a sum of ₹4,20,000 with Gurudeva Trust (opposite parties). Upon seeking a refund of the deposited amount along with interest, the opposite parties al-legedly refused to return the amount.
Aggrieved, the complainant approached the District Legal Services Authority, where the dispute was settled before the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award directing the opposite parties to pay ₹4,20,000 within six months, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
As the opposite parties failed to comply with the Lok Adalat award, the complainant filed a con-sumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha, alleg-ing deficiency in service on account of non-payment.
The opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the complaint by filing an interlocutory ap-plication. However, the District Commission dismissed the application and held that the complaint was maintainable. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties preferred the present revision peti-tion before the State Commission.
Arguments By Opposite Parties
Gurudeva Trust (the opposite parties) contended that the consumer complaint was not maintaina-ble, as the dispute had already been finally resolved by a Lok Adalat award. It was argued that since the award related to the same cause of action, the District Commission could not entertain a fresh complaint on a settled dispute.
The counsel submitted that a Lok Adalat award is final, binding, and executable as a decree of a civil court, and does not permit any appeal or fresh proceedings. Relying on Section 21 of the Le-gal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it was contended that the award conclusively settled the dispute and could not be reopened merely due to non-compliance.
Observations & Decision of the Commission
The State Commission held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable. It observed that an award passed by a Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties to the dispute and that no appeal lies against such an award.
The Commission noted that in the event of non-compliance with a Lok Adalat award, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to seek execution of the award in accordance with law, and that filing a fresh consumer complaint for enforcement of the award is impermissible.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, the Commission held that a Lok Adalat award is final and binding, executable as a decree of a civil court, and can be chal-lenged only before the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution on limited grounds.
The Commission further held that although Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the Act operates in addition to other laws, the provision applies only where a dispute continues to exist. Once a dispute is settled through a Lok Adalat award, it ceases to exist and can-not be revived by invoking consumer jurisdiction.
Rejecting the contention that the presence of additional opposite parties would render the com-plaint maintainable, the Commission observed that the entire dispute relating to the deposit had al-ready been finally settled by the Lok Adalat and that the complainant, being a party to the award, was bound by its final and conclusive nature.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the order passed by the District Commission suffered from illegality, impropriety, and incorrectness. The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the consumer complaint was dismissed as not maintainable.
Case Title: Gurudeva Trust v. Jayaprakash
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 56 of 2024