ORDER 1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 06.08.2015 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in R. P. No. 61 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 06.07.2015 in C. C. No. 153 of 2013 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’. 2. The Petitioners herein, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Transport Finance Co.’. The Respondent herein, Mrs. Chanda Jaiswal, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’. 3. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Transport Finance Co., Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, Advocate, and for the Complainant, Mr. Sudhansu Palo, Advocate, on 17.01.2020. Learned Counsel for the Transport Finance Co. inter alia submitted on instructions that “the subject vehicle will be handed over to the complainant on an as-is-where-is basis within two weeks from today”. Perused the material on record. 4. The chronological sequence of facts, leading to this Revision Petition, is as follows: The Complainant took a loan from the Transport Finance Co. to finance a Truck. There was dispute between the Complainant and the Transport Finance Co. over the repayment of the loan. The Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, seeking the following relief: A: To Direct the opposite parties to issue NOC of the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-14R 3206 immediately to the complainant and also issue NOC on regards to the said loan to the complainant. B: To direct the opposite parties to give entire statement of the loan account including the previous one if any, and not charge any outstanding dues till today. C: To direct the O.Ps to refund payment of rupees 26,000/- as the extra money paid to the O.Ps also handed over the agreement copy of the same refinance structure. D: To direct the O.Ps No. 1, 2 not to repossess the vehicle bearing no. OR-14 J 5031 of the complaint. E: To direct the O.Ps to pay rupees 20,000 as a compensation for mental agony, harassment, and illegal demand. F: Legal expenses of Rs.25,000/- . G: Any other relief/relief’s which the Hon’ble Forum deem fit and proper for adjudication of the matter. In the adjudication of the complaint case before it, the District Forum passed an interim Order dated 17.12.2013 directing the Transport Finance Co. not to repossess / seize the Truck of the Complainant till further orders. The Transport Finance Co. forcefully seized the Complainant’s Truck on 18.02.2015. In respect of the said forceful seizure, the Complainant made an FIR with the Police Station. A criminal case was subsequently registered for investigation against the Transport Finance Co. under order of the Judicial Magistrate. Vide its Order dated 02.06.2015, the District Forum directed the Transport Finance Co. to immediately release the Truck to the Complainant and report compliance by 06.06.2015 and to also show cause as to why proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act should not be initiated against it. The Transport Finance Co. did not release her Truck to the Complainant. Vide its Order dated 06.07.2015, the District Forum made an order under Section 25(1) of the Act to attach the property of the Transport Finance Co. The Transport Finance Co. filed a Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act before the State Commission, challenging the Order dated 02.06.2015 of the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed the Revision Petition vide its Order dated 06.08.2015. The Transport Finance Co. filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act before this Commission, challenging the said Order dated 06.08.2015 of the State Commission. 5. For ready appreciation, the relevant Orders dated 17.12.2013, dated 02.06.2015 and dated 06.07.2015 of the District Forum are reproduced below: Extract copy of order dtd. 17.12.2013 This is a complaint alleging deficiency in finance service wherein the complainant who avail financial assistance from the OP financing Institution is used to pay installments regularly still the OP threatened for repossession. Perused the complaint petition along with documents produced by the complainant. Heard. The complaint petition. It attracts this Forum’s jurisdiction and not time barred. Hence, C.C. is admitted. Issue notice of complaint to the OP fixing 22.01.2014 for their appearance and filing of Written version if any. Sd/- Member Sd/- President I.A. NO. 15 OF 2013 A separate petition u/.13(3-B) of C.P. Act, 1986 has also filed by the complainant for granting interim order directing the O.P. not to repossess his truck bearing No. OR-14R-3206. The said petition is also supported with an affidavit. The complainant submits that, the vehicle is the only source of her earning an in its absence she could not maintain her livelihood. The complainant further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement she has already paid all the outstanding balance since the date of finance, but the O.P. due to non-payment of disputed dues use to threaten the complainant through their agency to seize her vehicle forcefully. Heard. We are satisfied to allow the prayer of the petitioner/complainant as an interim measure as it appears to us necessary to pass the same as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. The O.P. No. 1 Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Uditnagar, Rourkela is directed not to repossess/seize the Truck of the complainant bearing No. OR-14R-3206 until further orders. Extract of the order be served to the parties concerned for information. Put up on the date fixed i.e. 22.01.2014 for filing of W/S, objection on the petition u/s.13)(3-B) of C.P. Act, Agreement copy and up to date account statement by the O.Ps if any. Sd/- Member Sd/ President Extract copy of order dtd. 02.06.2015 I.A. No. 4 OF 2015 Arising out of C.C. No. 153 of 2013 Case record is put up to-day on the strength of put up petition filed by the Complainant concerned. The case is pending for hearing. A petition u/s.13(3-B) of C.P. Act is filed on behalf of the complainant/petitioner. The said petition is supported with an affidavit. The grievances of the complainant is that the matter is sub-judice, interim order dtd. 17.12.2013 was passed restraining the Finance Company Ops who seize the Complainant’s Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-14R-3206. The learned Advocate for the Complainant submitted that during sub-judice stage of the case despite interim order OP No. 1 Finance Company along with staffs forcefully seized the vehicle of the Complainant by batten the driver of the vehicle on 18.02.2015 and forcible seized the vehicle. Vehicle inventory list dtd. 18.02.2015 was issued. F.I.R. there of was also lodged before the Police Station. Due to inaction of the Police 1 CC Case No.296/2015 has been filed before the Hon’ble SDJM, Panposh who sent the same to Biramitrapur Police Station, District Sundargarh u/s.153 Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation and then case against O.P. No. 1 along with staffs u/s. 323,329, 294 and 506 IPC was registered. The Complainant concerned under this circumstances prayed the Forum for issuance of direction to release the seized vehicle. Perused the entire case record along with the petition, as per interim order as well as other supporting documents furnished by the Complainant. We are satisfied that during pendency of the original C.C. No. 153 of 2013 despite interim order dtd. 17.12.2013 OP No. 1 with staffs and others forcefully seized the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-14R-3206 of the Complainant without any authority or permission from any Court of law and disobedience of Court also and due to this reason only the petition filed by the Complainant is allowed. The OP No. 1 Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Uditnagar, Rourkela is directed to release the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-14R-3206 in favour of the Complainant immediately and report compliance by 06.06.2015 and to file show cause as to why penal proceeding u/s 25(1) of C.P. Act will not be initiated against him so as to reach by 6th itself. Extract copy of this order be sent to the Ops. Sd/- MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT Extract order dtd. 06.07.2015 No stay order is filed to-day. Further prayer for extention of time is made from the side of the Opposite Party. Complainant’s Advocate is present. Further time can not be allowed. Hence the petition is rejected. Petition u/s 25(1) of the C.P. Act pending before the Forum is to be proceeded. The particulars of the property to be attached is furnished by the Complainant. As order dtd. 02.06.2015 has not complied by the Opposite Party. Section 25(1) of the C.P. Act provides enforcement of orders of the District Forum, State Commission, or the National Commission. According to the provisions of this section, where an interim order made under the Act is not complied with, the Dist. Forum, or the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complied with such order, to be attached. Thus, on consideration we are of the view that the property of the Opposite Party furnished in the schedule has to be attached, by an Officer authorized by this Forum. Accordingly the HC of Uditnagar Police Station, Rourkela is authorized to execute the order of attachment. The attachment, if effected, shall be communicated to this Forum as soon as it made within a period not exceeding 72 hours. The copy of the order sent to the HC, Uditngar Police Station, Rourkela to execute the order. Put up on 10.07.2015. SCHEDULE: Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, Uditngar above the Traffic Jam, Po: Rourkela-12, Ps: Uditnagar, Dist.: Sundargarh. Surrounded as East: Open Space, West: Office of Cholamandalam Finance Office, South: Road, North: Office Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT 6. It is noted that the District Forum has passed self-contained and self-speaking Orders. 7. The following is well evident: [a] In the adjudication of the case before it, an interim Order was passed by the District Forum on 17.12.2013, with reasons recorded, restraining the Transport Finance Co. from repossessing / seizing the Truck of the Complainant till further orders. [b] The Transport Finance Co. did not agitate the interim Order. [c] The Transport Finance Co. violated the interim Order and, despite the interim protection being in place, forcefully seized the Complainant’s Truck on 18.02.2015. [d] An Order was passed by the District Forum on 02.06.2015, directing the Transport Finance Co. to immediately release the Truck to the Complainant and to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act may not be initiated against it. [e] The Transport Finance Co. did not comply with the order to immediately release her Truck to the Complainant. [f] An Order was passed under Section 25(1) of the Act by the District Forum on 06.07.2015, with reasons recorded, to attach the property of the Transport Finance Co. 8. The Transport Finance Co. challenged the Order dated 02.06.2015 of the District Forum before the State Commission by way of Revision Petition. 9. The State Commission dismissed the Transport Finance Co.’s Petition vide its impugned Order dated 06.08.2015. A short extract from the appraisal made by the State Commission is reproduced below: Rightly or wrongly an order was passed by the District Forum directing the petitioners not to seize the vehicle but the petitioners seized it. We do not find any illegality or procedural error in the impugned order while sitting in the revision. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed The District Forum is directed to dispose of the Consumer Complaint expeditiously preferably within two and half months hence. 10. It is noted that the State Commission passed a well-considered and well-reasoned Order. 11. On 17.01.2020, during the arguments before this Commission, learned Counsel for the Transport Finance Co. submitted on instructions that “the subject vehicle will be handed over to the complainant on an as-is-where-is basis within two weeks from today”. 12. The facts enunciated above speak for themselves. 13. It is well evident that the District Forum provided interim protection to the Complainant, the Transport Finance Co. did not agitate the interim protection, it violated the interim protection by forcefully seizing the Complainant’s Truck, it did not comply with the District Forum’s Order to immediately release her Truck. 14. As such, no error or illegality is visible in the District Forum taking recourse to the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act. 15. When the interim Order of the District Forum was in place, nothing prevented the Transport Finance Co. from agitating the said Order. However, it rather violated it, about 15 months after it had been passed. 16. After having violated the interim protection, nothing prevented the Transport Finance Co. from complying with the District Forum’s Order to immediately release her Truck to the Complainant. However, it rather defied it. 17. The dichotomy and inconsistency in the Transport Finance Co. now submitting before this Commission, on 17.01.2020, during the arguments, that it will “hand over” her Truck to the Complainant on “as-is-where-is basis”, is self-evident, and it does not extinguish the Transport Finance Co.’s culpability and liability for its continuous willful unlawful acts. 18. The “as-is-where-is” condition of the Truck in January 2020, about 5 years after its forceful seizure in February 2015, can be well appreciated. 19. Here, the following may be reproduced for ready reference: Section 25 of the Act: 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. (2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. (3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. Section 27 of the Act: 27. Penalties.—(1) Where a trader 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 thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. 20. Section 25(1) empowers the District Forum to undertake ‘Enforcement’ by ordering attachment of property to enforce compliance of an “interim order”. 21. Section 27 empowers the District Forum to impose ‘Penalties’ for failure or omission to comply with “an order”. 22. Section 27 does not distinguish between an order that has attained finality within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act (‘final order’) or an “interim order”, it speaks of “any order” (“fails or omits to comply with any order”). 23. An Order to provide interim protection during the pendency of the adjudication of a case has necessarily to be complied with (when duly in place). Failure or omission to comply with it attracts the ‘Penalties’ under Section 27. 24. An Order to undo the wrong of violating interim protection has necessarily to be complied with. Failure or omission to comply with it attracts the ‘Penalties’ under Section 27. 25. Section 25(1) and Section 27 are in different domains, the one for enforcement of an “interim order”, the other for imposition of penalties for failure or omission to comply with “an order”. Both have different purposes. In the facts and specificities of a case, if deemed just and appropriate, for reasons recorded, the two can proceed together, independently and concurrently. 26. The case brought out before the District Forum, that despite the interim protection of 17.12.2013 the Complainant’s Truck was forcefully seized by the Transport Finance Co. on 18.02.2015, which caused the District Forum to pass its Order of 02.06.2015, and its subsequent Order of 06.07.2015, contains the ingredients which attract both, the provisions of Section 25(1) as well as the provisions of Section 27. 27. In the facts and specificities of the instant matter, recourse to Section 25(1) in relation to ‘Enforcement’, as well as independent and concurrent recourse to Section 27 in relation to ‘Penalties’, is just and appropriate. (The continuous willful unlawful acts of the Transport Finance Co. necessitate thus.) 28. The Act is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. This is a case of a company, with wherewithal, on the one side, and an ordinary common ‘consumer’, without wherewithal, on the other side, with the company first violating and defying the orders of the District Forum with impunity, and then agitating, unsuccessfully, before the State Commission, and then filing a patently ill-conceived and totally meritless Petition before this Commission. 29. All this is not viewed favourably, it inter alia also necessitates caution and cost. 30. In the light of the above examination, the following is directed: [i] This Revision Petition No. 2167 of 2015, impugning the Order dated 06.08.2015 of the State Commission, is dismissed. The State Commission’s Order dated 06.08.2015 is confirmed. The District Forum’s Orders dated 17.12.2013, 02.06.2015 and 06.07.2015 sustain. [ii] In addition, independent and separate of, and in addition to the ongoing proceedings for ‘Enforcement’ under Section 25(1) of the Act, the District Forum shall also undertake proceedings for ‘Penalties’ under Section 27 of the Act. [iii] The Transport Finance Co. through its Chief Executive is put to stern advice of caution through imposition of cost of Rs. 5 lakh, out of which Rs.2.50 lakh shall be paid to the Complainant and Rs. 2.50 lakh shall be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. [iv] The Transport Finance Co. through its Chief Executive shall pay Rs. 1 lakh to the Complainant as cost of litigation for the revisional proceedings before this Commission, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. [v] The amount deposited with the District Forum in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 24.08.2015, along with interest if any accrued thereon, shall (also) be utilized by the District Forum towards realisation of the cost imposed / cost of litigation awarded. 31. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Complainant, to the Chief Executive of the Transport Finance Co. and to the District Forum, within three days of its pronouncement. | 
