A revision would not be maintainable under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against an order which was passed in appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission arising out of the execution proceedings, the Supreme Court has reiterated.
In this case, the NCDRC had dismissed a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Appeal against the District Forum order in an Execution Petition. The Commission had observed that the Revision Petitions are applicable only against the order of the State Commission in any consumer dispute, and not in in Execution Petition.
While dismissing the SLP filed against the NCDRC order, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed:
"In view of the decision of this Court in Karnataka Housing Board v K A Nagamani , the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was correct in coming to the conclusion that a revision would not be maintainable under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against an order which was passed in appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission arising out of the execution proceedings"
In KA Nagamani, the Supreme Court had observed thus: "Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute..There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings"
Case: SHASHIKANT RAGHUNATH PATIL vs. PUTUBAI NARSINH NAIK (SINCE DECEASED) [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).5793/2020]Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee