TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-36 7. Historical background of certain Amendments made in the 1986 Act by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 12 36-39 8. Discussion regarding provisions for enforcement of orders 13 39-42 9. Scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 14 42-47 10. Comparative position of the provisions pertaining to enforcement of orders during different periods 15 48-53 11. Issues 16-17 54 12. Issue No.1 12.1 Position of law with respect to interpretation of statutes 18-24 54-66 12.2 Conclusion 25-27 67-68 13. Remedies to challenge orders passed by different fora in execution proceedings 28 68-69 14. Directions to the NCDRC 29-30 70 15. Issue No.2 31-37 70-72 16. Relief 38-41 73-74 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant society assailing the order Dated 16.07.2019 in Execution Revision Petition Nos.52/2014, 53/2014 & 56/2014. of the National Commission National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.. The appellant society was aggrieved by the order Dated 21.04.2014 in Revision Petition Nos. RP/0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opposite party No. 96 to 102 vide order dated 01.03.2005. They had formed a Palm Groves Bungalow Society, comprising of opposite parties 96 to 102, which was registered on 31.10.2005. 1.4. Vide order dated 16.03.2007, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the appellant society and held that the unit-holders of different unit, Apartment, Duplex Houses and Bungalows have right to use & enjoy these common amenities and facilities, subject to payment of fees or subscriptions, monthly or periodical. The District Forum directed respondent builder to execute conveyance deed in favour of the appellant society and also directed respondent builder to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant society. Further, respondent bungalow owners were directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant society. Relevant para thereof is extracted thereof: "The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant Society, in terms of agreement dt.28/6/1999. In executing the Conveyance Deed, the Opposite Party No.1 should take into consideration the observations of the Foru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set aside the order of the State Commission, recording that it failed to consider the additional documents placed before it, and remanded the matter back to the State Commission. 1.7 During pendency of appeals, the appellant society filed execution petition EP No. 22 of 2007 under section 25 of the 1986 Act seeking execution of conveyance deed in favour of the appellant society. 1.8. Vide order dated 05.09.2007, the District Forum appointed Commissioner for preparation of draft conveyance deed in compliance of the order under execution and in terms of the agreement dated 28.06.1999. The said draft conveyance deed was submitted before the District Forum to which objections were raised by the respondents. 1.9. The district forum vide order dated 20.11.2007 approved the conveyance deed and rejected objections filed by the respondents. The district forum held that the main concern of the respondent bungalow owners to enjoy the common facilities had been taken care of by the order dated 16.03.2007. Directions were issued to respondent builder for execution of the sale deed. 1.10. Respondent builder challenged the aforesaid order by filing revision petition Revision Petition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecution proceedings, should be treated as appeals since the respondents had a right to file an appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4.1 The National Commission failed to appreciate that in view of the decision of this court in Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani 2019 INSC 631; (2019) 7 SCR 218 , a Revision Petition was not maintainable before the State Commission under Section 17(1)(b) of the 1986 Act against an order passed by the District Forum in Execution proceedings. 4.2 After the amendment of the 1986 Act by Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 Hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Amendment Act',which came into force w.e.f. 15.03.2003, till the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Hereinafter referred to as 'the 2019 Act', there was no specific provision under Section 25 of the 1986 Act to execute or enforce a final order, which is not in the nature of a 'money decree', as was the case prior to the 2002 Amendment Act where 'every order' was enforceable as if it was a decree or an order made by a Civil Court. 4.3 Absence of any provision to enforce final orders, is not merely a lacuna but a huge absurdity and an injudiciou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us. Both these orders were not placed on record by the respondent No.1. 5.4 That the Conveyance Deed for utilization of common area and facilities has already been executed in favour of 'Palm Groves Bungalow Cooperative Housing Society' in the year 2006, as such the complaint filed by the appellant society has been rendered infructuous. 6. Vide impugned order the National Commission had opined that the revision petitions filed by the appellant society against the order passed in execution proceedings were not maintainable as no consumer complaint was pending. It was further observed in that order that though the respondent/judgment-debtor did not have right to file revision petition before the State Commission, yet it had a right to file appeal under Section 27A of the 1986 Act. Merely giving the nomenclature of revision petition will not oust the jurisdiction of the State Commission and the order passed by the State Commission should be treated to have been passed in exercise of powers under Section 27A of the 1986 Act. ARGUMENTS BY THE LEARNED ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA AND THE AMICUS 7. During the course of arguments, it was noticed that the issue in these petitions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments, Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs PFC 2009 INSC 1174; (2009) 15 SCR 1; Corporation Bank vs Saraswati 2008 INSC 1321; (2008) 16 SCR 340; MSR Leathers vs S Palaniappan 2013 INSC 604; (2013) 10 SCR 81; Poonam Devi vs Oriental Insurance 2020 INSC 291; (2020) 4 SCR 922; Sailesh vs Dhariwal (2016) 3 SCC 619; Bank of Baroda vs MBL 2022 INSC 53; (2022) 12 SCR 761; Chitra Sharma vs UOI (2018) 18 SCC 575; Swiss Ribbons Private Limited and Another vs Union of India and Others (2019) 2 SCC 17. 8.1 The executions were being filed and entertained even after the 2002 Amendment Act came into force by which Section 25 of the 1986 Act was substituted. Any interpretation given differently, at this stage, may affect large number of consumers, especially whose execution petitions are pending. The same may generate unnecessary avoidable litigation as the party in whose favour any order has been passed cannot be left remediless for execution thereof. 8.2 As per data submitted by learned Attorney General for India, even now thousands of such petitions are pending before District Forum and the State/National Commission pertaining to different years and the details thereof are as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price - (a) Fixed by or under any law for the time being in force; (b) Displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; (c) Displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force; (d) Agreed between the parties; (v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used are being offered for sale to he public,- (a) in contravention of any standards relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force; (b) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public; (vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. (5) Every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2, the provisions of Rule 8 of Order I of Schedule I to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon. (7) In the event of death of a complainant who is a consumer or of the opposite party against whom the complaint has been filed, the provisions of Order XXII of the First Scheduled to the Code of Civil Proced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... responsible for issuing such misleading advertisement; (i) to provide for adequate costs to parties. Section 15. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period: Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty- five thousand rupees, whichever is less. xxx xxx xxx Section 17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) to entertain- (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Section 22. Power and procedure applicable to the National Commission. (1) The provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 and the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be considered necessary by the Commission, by applicable to the disposal of disputes by the National Commission. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record. xxx xxx xxx Section 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. (1) Where an interim order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under Section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from- (a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission; (b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and (c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court. (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission: Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient case for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days." 10. To begin with, it would be relevant to refer to the kinds of reliefs which can be granted by the District Forum under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 19 of the 1986 Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the State Commission in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17(1)(a)(i) can prefer appeal before the National Commission. It is an order passed by State Commission in a complaint filed before it. 10.5 Section 21 of the 1986 Act defines the jurisdiction of the National Commission. Section 21(a)(ii) provides for entertaining appeals against the orders of the State Commission. This has to be read in conjunction with Section 19 of the 1986 Act, which limits filing of an appeal against specific orders. As is the jurisdiction vested in the State Commission for suo motu exercise of power, Clause (b) of Section 21 thereof provides suo motu power to the National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in 'any consumer dispute' which is pending or decided by the State Commission. 10.6 Section 25 of the 1986 Act provides for remedy for enforcement of the orders passed by different fora under the Act. 10.7 Section 27 of the aforesaid Act provides for penalties for non-compliance of the order passed by any of the fora. Section 27-A of the 1986 Act provides for remedy of appeal in respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovides for the manner in which a complaint can be made. Section 13 provides for procedure on admission of complaint. Whereas Section 14 provides for the reliefs, which can be granted by the District Forum. 12.1 An issue came up for consideration before this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 : 1994 INSC 220, as to whether the District Forum was competent to grant interim relief. It was opined that under the provisions of the 1986 Act the District Forum is not competent to grant any interim or ad-interim relief (See para 44). The same view was expressed by this Court in Gulzari Lal Agarwal v Accounts Officer (1996) 10 SCC 590 : 1996 INSC 1108 (See para 21). 12.2 To make the provisions of the 1986 Act more inclusive and effective, and with a view to empower different fora under the 1986 Act to grant interim relief as well, by the 2002 Amendment Act, sub-section 3B was added in Section 13 of the Act. 12.3 As Section 13 deals with the procedure on admission of complaints before the District Forum, and there being no independent provision as such providing the procedure before the State Commission and the National Commission, vide Sections 18 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RDING PROVISIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS 13. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, as amended by the 2002 Amendment Act, provided that where interim order made under the Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person not complying with such an order to be attached. 13.1 Sub-section (2) thereof provides that no attachment shall remain in force for more than three months. If by the end of three months non-compliance still continues, the concerned Fora may sell the property attached and out of the sale proceeds may award damages to the complainant and pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. 13.2 Sub-section (3) thereof provides that where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, the State or the National Commission, the person entitled to the amount can make an application to the concerned Fora to issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district concerned to enable him to proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. 13.3 To put the record straight, in our opinion, it would not be out of pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nishable with imprisonment for a term provided therein. 13.7 Section 27A of the 1986 Act provides for an appeal against an order passed under Section 27 thereof. In terms of the aforesaid provision, an appeal from District Forum lies to the State Commission. From an order passed by the State Commission the appeal was maintainable before the National Commission and from an order passed by the National Commission an appeal lies to this Court. 13.8 On a combined reading of Section 27 and 27A of the 1986 Act as well it could not be pointed out by the learned counsel that the same can be read to mean a provision providing for enforcement of the orders as the provision only fixed criminal liability on the defaulter for the non-compliance of the order, which ultimately may not result in execution of the order as defaulter may only be punished with either imprisonment and/or fine. SCHEME OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 14. The 2019 Act replaced the earlier 1986 Act dealing more comprehensively with the consumer disputes. Section 34 thereof provides for jurisdiction of the District Commission. Section 47 provides for jurisdiction of the State Commission and Section 58 deals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and on conferment of such powers, the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of first class for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (3) Save as otherwise provided, the offences under sub-section (1) shall be tried summarily by the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. 73. Appeal against order passed under Section 72. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), where an order is passed under sub-section (1) of section 72, an appeal shall lie, both on facts and on law from- (a) the order made by the District Commission to the State Commission; (b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and (c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court. (2) Except as provided in sub-section (1), no appeal shall lie before any court, from any order of a District Commission or a State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. (3) Every appeal under this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act w.e.f. 20.07.2020. Nothing as such has been provided for enforcement of a 'final order' in terms of Section 25 as was existing after substitution of the aforesaid section vide 2002 Amendment Act. As has already been discussed in the previous part of the judgment, Section 25 of the 1986 Act, as was existing prior to the aforesaid amendment, clearly provided for enforcement of every order as a decree of the court or to even transfer of such proceedings to the court concerned for execution. COMPARATIVE POSITION OF THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS DURING DIFFERENT PERIODS 15. To appreciate the import of Section 25 as was existing in the 1986 Act prior to the 2002 Amendment Act w.e.f. 15.03.2003 and thereafter, and Section 71 of the 2019 Act, which is pari materia, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same in a comparative manner : 1986 Act [Prior to 2002 Amendment] 1986 Act [Post 2002 Amendment] w.e.f. 15.03.2003 2019 Act w.e.f. 20.07.2020 Section 25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a decree made by a Court in a suit before it and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, as far as may be, applicable, subject to the modification that every reference therein to the decree shall be construed as reference to the order made under this Act." 15.1 Section 25 which talks about enforcement of 'orders' by the District Forum, the State or the National Commission provided that every order passed by different fora may be enforced in the same manner as if it was a decree or order made by the court. In case of inability, the same can be sent to the court of competent jurisdiction for execution. In the aforesaid provision there was no distinction of any kind, namely, as to the kind of relief granted or to the order being executed, be it interim or final. 15.2 Section 25 of the 1986 Act, having been substituted w.e.f. 15.03.2003 vide 2002 Amendment Act, provided in its title 'Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State or the National Commission'. The aforesaid section was further divided into three parts. ● Sub-section (1), apparently on account of an error, used the term 'interi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act were enforceable. Execution petitions were being filed and entertained. During the interregnum, many were disposed of against which the aggrieved parties invoked jurisdiction of the higher forum. Some of petitions filed for enforcement of the orders are still pending. 15.6 By using the term 'interim order' in Section 25 of the 1986 Act, post 2002 Amendment Act, for enforcement therefor, limited option was given i.e. attachment and sale of property. Prior to 2002 amendment in the 1986 Act and post enactment of 2019 Act, provisions of CPC were made applicable, as far as possible. ISSUES 16 The issues which are required to be considered by this Court are : I. Whether there is any drafting error in Section 25 of the 1986 Act, as existed post 2002 Amendment, in so far it relates to enforcement of final orders, if yes, whether the tools available for interpretation of statutes can be used to clarify the position, to bring the same in line with the spirit of the 1986 Act? II. Whether a revision petition filed against an order passed in execution proceeding can be construed as an appeal? 17. The fact remains that the title of Section 25 of the 1986 Act, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inistration. The Court after considering the traditional principles of interpretation known as 'Mimansa rules of interpretation held that the "relevant subject" should be added in the qualification required for the post of Reader after words "at the Master's degree level" to give the rules a purposive interpretation by filling in the gap. Relevant paras therefrom are extracted below: "13. No doubt, the ordinary principle of interpretation is that words should neither be added nor deleted from a statutory provision. However, there are some exceptions to the rule where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a strict construction which leads to absurdity or deprives certain existing words of all meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply the words (vide Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edn., pp. 71-76). 14. Thus, in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf [AIR 1959 SC 198], the Supreme Court interpreted the words "any person interested in a waqf" in Section 5(2) of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 as meaning "any person inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions than with reference to substantive provisions. 21.1. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn., p. 228), under the caption "modification of the language to meet the intention" in the chapter dealing with "Exceptional Construction" states the position succinctly: "Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, which can hardly have been intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. This may be done by departing from the rules of grammar, by giving an unusual meaning to particular words, or by rejecting them altogether, on the ground that the legislature could not possibly have intended what its words signify, and that the modifications made are mere corrections of careless language and really give the true meaning. Where the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance of the law, except in a case of necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision: (SCC pp. 368-69, para 35) "35. Order 7 relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff whereas Order 8 relates to production of documents by the defendant. Under Order 8 Rule 1-A(4) a document not produced by the defendant can be confronted to the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination. Similarly, the plaintiff can also confront the defendant's witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead of 'defendant's witnesses', the words 'plaintiff's witnesses' have been mentioned in Order 7 Rule 14(4). To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words 'plaintiff's witnesses', would be read as 'defendant's witnesses' in Order 7 Rule 14(4). We, however, hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature." 21.6. Justice G.P. Singh extracts four conditions that should be present to justify departure from the plain words of the statute, in his treatise Principles of Statutory Interpretation (12th Edn., 2010, Lexis Nexis, p. 144) from the decision of the House of Lords in Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. [(1978) 1 WLR 231: (1978) 1 All ER 948 (H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in place of 'interim order' in the sub-section and make provisions of Order XXI of the 1st schedule of CPC applicable. 21. If we talk about the enforcement of orders passed by different Fora, Section 25 of the 1986 Act, as existed prior to the 2002 Amendment Act, provided that 'every order' can be enforced as if it is a decree of the court. Section 27 of the 1986 Act even made a person, against whom an order is passed, criminally liable, in case of non-compliance thereof. Under the aforesaid Section a complaint can be filed for non-compliance of 'any order'. 22. Though comprehensive amendments were made by the 2002 Amendment Act empowering consumers more and in that line, conferring more power to the Fora under the aforesaid Act. While substituting Section 25 of the 1986 Act, which provides for enforcement of orders, the same has been divided into three parts. The apparent error is in sub-section (1) thereof which does not go in line with the spirit and object of the 1986 Act. The reason may be that earlier different Fora under the Act could not grant interim relief and by the 2002 Amendment Act they were empowered to do so. Sub-section (1) erroneously uses the expression 'i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as may be, applicable and'. This interpretation goes in line with what was being understood and applied by different fora even post 2002 Amendment in 1986 Act. This is evident from number of execution petitions filed, entertained and disposed of. Many are still pending. 26. The sub-section (1) of Section 25 shall now read as under: "Section 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. (1) Where any order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached." 27. As there was anomalous situation in the language of Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act for the period 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020, the provision as we have suggested above shall be considered as applicable in all the pending execution petitions or proceedings arising therefrom a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lief is granted to the party entitled thereto. The consumers of justice should feel that they have received justice in reality and not merely on papers. ISSUE NO.2 31. The factual position of the case, in order to adjudicate upon merits, has already been discussed in detail in paras 1.1 to 3. 32. The scheme of the 1986 Act has been discussed in paras 10.1 to 10.7. In the present case, the order dated 20.11.2007 was passed by the District Forum in Execution Petition No. E-22 of 2007 filed by the appellant-society. In case any person was aggrieved thereof, the proper remedy was to file appeal against that order before the State Commission as provided under Section 15 of the Act. Thereafter, no remedy of appeal or revision therefrom is provided. 33. In case an order is passed by the State Commission in execution petition, no appeal will be maintainable before National Commission as Section 19 of the 1986 Act provides for limited remedy of appeal against an order passed by the State Commission to the National Commission. 34. Since the execution of an order passed by different fora under the 1986 Act will not be a matter of consumer dispute, even the suo motu exercise of ....