Consumer Commissions Have Inherent Power To Stay Execution Of Order Under Challenge On Appellant's Application: Kerala High Court
Gyanvi Khanna
7 Jan 2025 7:00 PM IST
The Kerala High Court (on January 06) observed that though, under the Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision to stay the execution of an order passed by the District or State Commission, the Commissions possess inherent power to stay the same.
However, this is subject to the condition of the appellant filing an application seeking the stay.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in Shreenath Corp. (M/s.) and others vs. Consumer Education and Research Society (2014) 8 SCC 657 and Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited and Others v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (2022) 8 SCC 474. Therein, it was held:
“If the National Commission after hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wants to stay the amount awarded, it is open to the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of stay. Entertainment of an appeal and stay of proceeding pursuant to order impugned in the appeal stands at different footings, at two different stages.”
The brief factual matrix was such that the District Commission had allowed the present respondent's complaint. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission without filing any application for staying the impugned order. Meanwhile, the respondent had filed an execution application. Consequently, the District Commission has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. Challenging this, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The Bench of Justice C.S. Dias noted that there is no provision in the Act which is pari materia to Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for stay in execution order.
“The only requirement contemplated under the Old Act is to file an appeal and deposit 50% of the amount ordered or Rs.25,000/- whichever is less, as a pre-condition to accept the appeal on file. As per Section 41 of the New Act (2019 one), the appellant must deposit 50% of the ordered amount with the appeal.”
In this context, the Court referred to the above-mentioned precedents for interpretation of Section 19 (Appeals) of the Act. After examining the same, the current Bench held:
“The above precedents unquestionably settle the legal position that, notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision to stay the operation of an order passed by the District or State Commission, the Commissions have the inherent power to stay the operation of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appeal is duly filed after depositing the statutory amount. Then, it will always be open to an appellant to move an application for the stay of the operation of the impugned order.”
Given that the petitioner had not filed any stay application, the High Court invoked its discretionary powers to grant the petitioner “breathing time” to file the same. Against this background, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Name: Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others., WP(C) NO. 25701 OF 2024
