Supreme Court Holds Consumer Fora Orders Are Enforceable As Civil Decrees; Reads Section 25(1) To Include "Any Order"

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard Civil Appeals arising out of execution and revision proceedings challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had held certain revision petitions "not maintainable". The appeals raised two central questions: whether Section 25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended in 2002) suffered a drafting anomaly that deprived consumer fora of civil enforcement powers for final orders during the 2003–2020 interregnum, and whether revision petitions filed in execution proceedings could be treated as appeals.

Decision Summary The Court held that Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act, as it stood after the 2002 Amendment, must be read to cover "any order" and not be confined to "interim order". The judges invoked established principles of purposive construction and correction of casus omissus to avoid an anomalous result which would have left many consumers remediless. The Court read into Section 25(1) words making Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable "as far as may be" and directed that this construction apply to pending execution proceedings for the period 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020. The Court also held that a challenge to an execution order passed by a District Forum was properly by appeal to the State Commission; where revision petitions were filed in place of appeals the State Commission's exercise would be treated as an appeal. However, it clarified that an order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings did not attract a further statutory appeal to the National Commission under the 1986 Act and, similarly, a National Commission order in execution proceedings did not automatically attract a Supreme Court appeal under the statutory appeals regime. The Court directed the NCDRC to take steps for expeditious disposal of execution petitions.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that “the Consumer Protection Act ... is a self-contained code” and that statutory interpretation could correct a drafting error to preserve the statute’s remedial purpose. It emphasized that “an order passed by any court, or any forum is merely a kind of paper decree unless effective relief is granted to the party entitled thereto.”

Background The appeals arose from long-running disputes in the Palm Groves housing project. The Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society (appellant) — formed by flat purchasers — had obtained a District Forum order directing the builder (M/s Magar Girme & Gaikwad Associates) to execute a deed of conveyance and to pay compensation. The State Commission modified parts of that order; the NCDRC remanded certain aspects and later dismissed revision petitions filed by the respondents as "not maintainable", reasoning that the respondents could have filed appeals under Section 27A. Separate execution proceedings had seen a court-appointed commissioner prepare a draft conveyance, which the District Forum approved in 2007; the State Commission later set aside that execution order in 2014. The appellant challenged the NCDRC order before the Supreme Court.

A central legal contention concerned Section 25 of the 1986 Act. Prior to the 2002 Amendment the provision treated "every order" of consumer fora as executable like a civil decree; the 2002 Amendment substituted wording that referred to enforcement only of an "interim order", while subsection (3) still allowed certificate recovery of monetary awards. That created an anomalous interregnum (15.03.2003–20.07.2020) during which enforcement of non-monetary, final orders lacked a clear statutory civil-execution route. The Court examined precedent (including Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani and other authorities), data on thousands of pending execution applications, and submissions by the Attorney General and an appointed amicus to conclude that the anomaly should be remedied by interpretation rather than leaving consumers remediless. The Court directed that Section 25(1) be read so as to permit enforcement of any order as a decree and to apply Order XXI CPC as far as practicable, declared that revision petitions filed in execution proceedings before the State Commission would be treated as appeals, and observed that no further statutory appeal lay from a State Commission order in execution proceedings to the National Commission. The Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeals accordingly and asked the NCDRC to take steps for expeditious disposal of pending execution matters.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5536–5538 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.30579–30581 of 2019) Case Title: Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Learned counsel for the appellant society (not named in judgment); assisted by Shri Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate (Amicus); Shri R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India (assisted Court) For the Respondent(s): Learned counsel for the respondent builder and bungalow owners (not named in judgment)