Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.@mdashThe petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to
quash the proceedings in E.P. No. 17 of 1998 in O.P. No. 320 of 1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South),
Madras.
2. This petition has arisen in this way :
The first respondent filed O. P. No, 320 of 1996, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras, against the
petitioners herein, for refund of certain sum of money, The redressal forum passed orders on December 13, 1996, whereunder the petitioners
were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,280 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation with cost Rs. 500.
The petitioners did not make any payment and therefore, the complainant instituted execution proceedings in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. In that E.P.,
the Consumer Redressal Forum passed orders sentencing the first petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Now,
the petitioners have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings.
The only contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a woman and as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a
woman is not liable to be arrested in execution of a money decree.
3. Heard both the counsel. Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, recites as under :
56. Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for money.--Notwithstanding anything in this part, court shall not order the
arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money.
4. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under :
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 District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case
may he, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the
State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it such order to the court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction :
(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it
for execution.
5. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under :
27. Penalties.--Where a trade or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by
the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be
less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both :
Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the
circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence offen prisonment or fine, or both, for a term less than the minimum term and the amount
less than the minimum amount, specified in this section.
6. It is needless to point out that the Consumer Redressal Forum has passed a money decree and that decree was sought to be executed in E. P.
No. 17 of 1998. But the Consumer Redressal Forum has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for one month on the first petitioner u/s 27 of the
Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited several authorities before me to lay stress that the proceedings shall be
quashed. But the decisions do not apply to the facts of the instant case. In The Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar R.K. Ramaswamy Sugar
Mills Vs. A. Fareed Bawa and others, , my learned brother P. Sathasivam J. has held that no compensation can be awarded where loss has not
been proved. This is a factor touching the merits of the matter. An ex parte decree has been passed against the petitioners and therefore, if at all
the petitioners can raise such a point, the petitioners have to do it before the appellate authority.
7. The next series of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the point whether the means of the petitioner have
to be ascertained before proceeding with the execution of a civil money decree. In Jolly George Varghese and Another Vs. The Bank of Cochin, ,
his Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer J. has held that the simple default to discharge is not enough, that there must be some element of bad faith beyond
mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part
of it, that the provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest
disowning of the obligation under the decree. This has been reiterated in Anuma Gounder v. Ponnusami [1981] 2 MLJ 229, wherein it has been
observed that the judgment debtor should be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be arrested and put in the civil prison as
contemplated by Order 21, rule 40(1) of the Code. The view expressed by His Lordships V.R. Krishna Iyer J. referred to above in Jolly George
Varghese and Another Vs. The Bank of Cochin, has been reiterated in Kunchumerra Rawther Ali Rawther and Another Vs. Mathai Thomas, , and
in Alagappan v. Rajaguru and Co. [1985] MLJ 331. These are all factors touching the execution of the money decree passed by a civil court. Of
course, it is settled law that by virtue of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman cannot be subjected to arrest in execution of a money
decree.
8. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the arrest of the first petitioner in the execution proceedings. She had been sentenced to
imprisonment u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel has referred to a decision in Joint Secretary, Gujarat Seed. Education
Board v. Dakshaishwarlal Dhorajiya [1993] 1 CPR 203, where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad has
held that before an order can be passed u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, show-cause notice should be issued against the concerned person
who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the redressal forum. That is not the point raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The only point is that the first petitioner is a woman who should not be subjected to arrest. In Vikmans v. Rakesh Kumar [1992] 1 CPR 287, the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi has observed that the proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are criminal in
nature. A plain reading of the section itself would show that the section is punitive. It mentions penalty in the form of imprisonment and levy of fine.
Therefore, when it comes to criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the Criminal Procedure Code differentiates between a man and a woman
as done u/s 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a person whether man or woman is liable for punishment for violation of the order passed by the
forum. Therefore, the principles of the CPC cannot be applied to the punitive provision of the Consumer Protection Act. I do not find that this
matter can be admitted. This petition is rejected.
