JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed under section 27A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 02.08.2017 passed by Learned Executing Forum in Execution Petition No. 33/2017A filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 titled Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Rajnesh Tandon. Brief facts of execution petition: 2. Shri Rajnesh Tandon filed consumer complaint No.477/2002 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum which was decided on dated 03.12.2004. It is pleaded that complainant was owner of Tata Sumo Maxi Cab bearing registration No.HP-02-8314 which was insured with opposite party and vehicle met with accident on dated 30.07.2001. It is further pleaded by the complainant that insurance company pressurized complainant to accept sum of Rs. 76000/- (Seventy six thousand) as full and final settlement and threatened the complainant that in case complainant refused to give consent then insurance company would not pay any amount to the complainant. It is pleaded that complainant had given consent to receive amount of Rs. 76000/- (Seventy six thousand) but even thereafter payment was not made and claim was repudiated by insurance company vide letter dated 03.07.2002. Complainant sought relief for payment of Rs. 280000/- (Two lac eighty thousand) alongwith interest and costs of litigation. 3. Complaint was contested by insurance company. Insurance company pleaded that complainant did not submit original driving licence to the insurance company despite issuance of many registered letters. It is pleaded that claim was repudiated by insurance company because original licence of the driver was not produced. 4. Learned District Forum on dated 03.12.2004 ordered insurance company to pay Rs. 204788/- (Two lac four thousand seven hundred eighty eight) to the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum w.e.f. Date of filing of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that insurance company would also pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 2500/- (Two thousand five hundred). In addition learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay amount within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of order. 5. In addition learned District Forum ordered that insurance company would also pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 2500/- (Two thousand five hundred). In addition learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay amount within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of order. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 03.12.2004 passed by learned District Forum Oriental Insurance Company filed Appeal No.50/2005 before H.P. State Consumer Commission and H.P. State Consumer Commission vide order dated 06.12.2006 partly allowed the appeal and reduced interest from 12% per annum to 9% per annum and affirmed rest of the order passed by learned District Forum. 6. Thereafter feeling aggrieved against order passed by H.P. State Consumer Commission Oriental Insurance Company filed Revision Petition No. 1569 of 2007 before Hon''ble National Commission and Hon''ble National Commission vide order dated 25.03.2014 allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by State Commission and District Forum and dismissed the consumer complaint filed by complainant. 7. Thereafter Oriental Insurance Company filed M.A. No.31 of 2015 under Section 144 of CPC for restitution of amount paid by insurance company to non-executant during pendency of proceedings and on dated 26.07.2016 learned Executing Forum ordered that complainant is under legal obligation to repay the money withdrawn by complainant from State Commission. Learned Executing Forum issued arrest warrant against complainant through Superintendent of Police Shimla returnable for 30.08.2016. Learned Executing Forum mentioned in order that various opportunities were given to non-executant to make the payment but nonexecutant did not pay amount. Thereafter complainant/nonexecutant namely Shri Rajnesh Tandon filed Revision Petition No. 37 of 2016 before H.P. State Consumer Commission and same was disposed of on dated 29.04.2017 by State Commission. On dated 29.04.2017 State Commission ordered that Oriental Insurance Company will file execution application either under Section 25 or 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for enforcement of order dated 25.03.2014 passed by Hon''ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.1569 of 2007 titled Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Rajnesh Tandon qua recovery of amount. 8. Thereafter insurance company filed execution petition No. 33/2017A under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned Executing Forum for compliance of order of Hon''ble National Commission. 9. Objections were filed before learned Executing Forum by non-executant and same were dismissed by learned Executing Forum. 8. Thereafter insurance company filed execution petition No. 33/2017A under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned Executing Forum for compliance of order of Hon''ble National Commission. 9. Objections were filed before learned Executing Forum by non-executant and same were dismissed by learned Executing Forum. Learned Executing Forum vide order dated 02.08.2017 issued bailable warrant under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) with one surety in the like amount against nonexecutant returnable for 11.08.2017. Learned Executing Forum further ordered that Superintendent of Police Shimla will be requested to get the warrant executed from the official not below the rank of Head Constable. Thereafter nonexecutant furnished personal bond and surety bond before learned Executing Forum on dated 11.08.2017. 10. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned Executing Forum dated 02.08.2017 non-executant namely Shri Rajnesh Tandon filed present appeal before State Commission. 11. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 12. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-executant that execution application under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was not maintainable before learned Executing Forum on behalf of executant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that Hon''ble National Commission vide order dated 25.03.2014 has allowed Revision Petition No.1569 of 2007 filed by insurance company and set aside the orders passed by State Commission and District Forums and dismissed consumer complaint filed by non-executant. Order passed by Hon''ble National Commission has attained stage of finality. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that order passed by Hon''ble National Commission was set aside by the Hon''ble Apex Court of India. 14. It is proved on record that during the pendency of Revision Petition No.1569 of 2007 before Hon''ble National Commission non-executant has withdrawn amount as awarded by learned District Forum and State Commission and as per calculation sum of Rs. 486896/- (Four lac eighty six thousand eight hundred ninety six) is recoverable from non-executant. 14. It is proved on record that during the pendency of Revision Petition No.1569 of 2007 before Hon''ble National Commission non-executant has withdrawn amount as awarded by learned District Forum and State Commission and as per calculation sum of Rs. 486896/- (Four lac eighty six thousand eight hundred ninety six) is recoverable from non-executant. State Commission is of the opinion that nonexecutant has no legal right to retain sum of Rs. 486896/- (Four lac eighty six thousand eight hundred ninety six) received from executant during pendency of proceedings because complaint filed by non-executant/complainant was dismissed by Hon''ble National Commission. It is proved on record that executant has filed execution application under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for compliance of order passed by Hon''ble National Commission. 15. It is well settled law that proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are punitive proceedings. It is also well settled law that proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are governed under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. As per Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 all offences under Consumer Protection Act 1986 would be tried summarily by learned District Forum or State Commission or National Commission as the case may be. Summary trial is governed under Chapter XXI of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and procedure of summary trial has been mentioned under Section 262 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. As per Section 262 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 procedure for trial of summon cases would be followed in summary trials. It is the duty of executing forum to satisfy the main order passed by Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1569 of 2007. It is well settled law that factual objection could not be raised in execution proceedings which could be raised in main consumer complaint. It is also well settled law that objection could be raised in execution proceedings relating to nullity of final order only. See titled Lekh Raj through LRs. and Others. Versus Ranjit Singh & Ors , (2017) AIR SC 4015. It is also well settled law that section 27 of Consumer Protection Act is not dependent upon section 25 of Consumer Protection Act and it is independent section. See titled M/s. Golden Forest (India) Ltd. Versus Satwinder Bedi , (2002) 2 CPC 536. and Others. Versus Ranjit Singh & Ors , (2017) AIR SC 4015. It is also well settled law that section 27 of Consumer Protection Act is not dependent upon section 25 of Consumer Protection Act and it is independent section. See titled M/s. Golden Forest (India) Ltd. Versus Satwinder Bedi , (2002) 2 CPC 536. It is also well settled law that section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is in addition to mode of recovery contemplated by section 25 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. See Delhi High Court (DB) titled Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. Versus Dipankar Guha,2008 1 CPC 45. It is well settled law that Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not dependent upon proceedings initiated under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. See M/s. Wheels World Versus Jagjit Singh Kang & Anr, 1999 2 CPC titled 222. 16. State Commission has perused interim order dated 11.08.2017 passed by learned Executing Forum. Nonexecutant appeared before learned Executing Forum on dated 11.08.2017 and learned Executing Forum has passed the following order: 11.08.2017 Present: Ms. Seema Sood Adv. counsel for the applicant. Respondent present with Sh. Subhash Verma Advocate. The respondent is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Same furnished, which has been attested and accepted by this Forum. Now, this petition be listed for consideration on charge in terms of the provisions contained under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act on 28.08.2017. In the mean time, a request be made to the Hon''ble State Commission seeking extension of the time of two month for disposal of execution petition. Sd/- Sd/- President Member 17. Learned Executing Forum has directed the nonexecutant to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) with one surety in the like amount and same was accepted by learned Executing Forum. Thereafter learned Executing Forum listed execution application for consideration as per provisions contained under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 18. State Commission is of the opinion that learned Executing Forum is proceeding in the matter strictly as per Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 because execution proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are governed under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 18. State Commission is of the opinion that learned Executing Forum is proceeding in the matter strictly as per Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 because execution proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are governed under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order passed by learned Executing Forum because non-executant is under legal obligation to comply final order passed by Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1569 of 2007 and State Commission is of the opinion that non-executant is under legal obligation to return the amount received from insurance company during the period when matter was subjudice before Hon''ble National Commission. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that non-executant has returned the amount to the insurance company which was received by non-executant when matter was subjudice before Hon''ble National Commission. 19. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of executant that order passed by learned Executing Forum is in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. Learned Executing Forum is proceeding strictly as per provisions of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned Executing Forum because matter has been listed by learned Executing Forum for consideration as provided under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Non-executant has not complied orders of Hon''ble National Commission whereby Hon''ble National Commission dismissed consumer complaint filed by non-executant. Nonexecutant has illegally retained money of insurance company. It is held that non-executant is legally liable to return money to executant on the concept of restitution. Concept of restitution is basically founded on the idea that when order is reversed then law imposes obligation upon non-executant who had received benefit of order to restitute executant for what executant has lost during the continuance of quasijudicial proceedings. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned Executing Forum is affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Executing Forum on 25.07.2018. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned Executing Forum is affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Executing Forum on 25.07.2018. Learned Executing Forum will dispose of execution application within two months from the date of receipt of file because proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are time bound proceedings. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned Executing Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.