State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Sayarimal Jain Proprietor Of M/S ... vs Smt Sushila Ishwarlal Bhatt on 18 November, 2025
AE-5-2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.AE/5/2024
(Arising out of order dated 05/039/2024 passed by the D.F. Thane in EA/14/30)
Mr.Sayarimal Jain
Proprietor of M/s.Ankush Enterprises
Mumbai 4000 004 .....Appellant/Org.OP no.1
Versus
1.Smt.Sushila Ishwarlal Bhatt
2.Mr.Narendra Ishwarlal Bhatt
......Respondents/org.complainants
Bhayander (W), District Thane
3.Mangala Smruti Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. ........Respondent/org.OP no.3
Bhayander (W), District Thane
BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade - President
Vijay C.Premchandani - Member
Appellant Mr.Sayarimal Jain present along with
PRESENT: Advocate Digambar Thakare a/w. Advocate Ajay Pawar
a/w. Advocate Aniket Ghanekar
Advocate Aarti Bhandari for respondents/org.complainants
FINAL ORDER
(Dt.18/11/2025)
Per Hon'ble Vijay C.Premchandani - Member
1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 05/03/2024, in Execution Application no.30/2014, passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane against the conviction order dated 05/03/2024 to the present appellant.
1AE-5-2024 The facts of the appeal:-
2. The appellant has contended that appellant is the original opponent in the original consumer complaint filed by the respondent no.1. The appellant has contended that the respondent no.3-Society has executed the Development Agreement as on 15/07/2023 with the appellant. The original complainant and the respondent no.3 failed to comply their part of contract by paying consideration towards the cost of the construction as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The complainant filed the original complaint against the present appellant for non-delivery of the alleged flat to the original complainant. The Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane has passed the order in consumer complaint no.103/2011 dated 21/12/2013 against the present appellant. The original complainant has also filed an Execution Application for non-compliance of the order in consumer complaint no.103/2011 by the present appellant. The present appellant has also filed First Appeal no.52/2014, which was partly allowed by the Hon'ble State Commission by reducing the compensation from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant was ready and shown his willingness to settle the matter and also agreed to hand over the keys of the flat to the respondent nos.1 & 2 for the lesser area granted under the original consumer complaint order. The respondent nos.1 & 2 refused to accept the same. The appellant wrote a letter to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to pay the balance consideration and take the flat but the respondent nos.1 & 2 failed to pay the same.
3. It is further contended in the facts of the appeal that respondent nos.1 & 2 filed the execution proceedings before the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane for non-compliance of the order u/sec.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but after taking the objection the same was chosen by the respondent nos.1 & 2 to proceed the application u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant has tried to comply the order by handing over the possession of flat no.302 to the 2 AE-5-2024 respondent nos.1 & 2. However, respondent nos.1 & 2 refused to take possession of the same. It is contended that respondent nos.1 & 2 failed to pay the balance amount as per the order. The said aspect is not considered by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane in the trial of the execution application. The Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane failed to consider the old flat was 248.05 sq.ft. carpet area and the respondent nos.1 & 2 failed to prove that they were entitled for 300 sq.ft. carpet area. The appellant has contended that after the final hearing, the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane as on 15/12/2023, the matter was adjourned for the final order. Even as on 28/02/2024, the order was not ready, hence the matter was again adjourned for the order on 05/03/2024. The appellant states that after convicting the present appellant and sentencing the appellant for simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.5000/-, further the appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent nos.1 & 2 within one month from the date of the order, failing which, to suffer further one month's simple imprisonment. There is no provision u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, where the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, can award such type of compensation to the accused person.
4. It is further contended that as on 05/03/2024, only operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court. No copy of the order and judgment was shown to the appellant nor certified copy of the same was provided to the appellant, as mentioned in the provisions of section 363 of Cr.P.C. 1973. The Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane has not appreciated the evidence and cross examination properly. The impugned order in original consumer complaint is not executable. The said aspect is not considered. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05/03/2024 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane in 3 AE-5-2024 Execution proceedings be set aside and Execution application no.30/2014 filed by the original complainants may be dismissed.
5. The present appeal was admitted. The accused was released on bail as per the provisions of section 389 of Cr.P.C. by suspending the sentence till the final hearing of the present appeal. The notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents appeared. Heard both the sides argument. We perused the impugned order passed in Execution application no.30/2014 dated 05/03/2024 and the compilation, documents annexed with the present appeal memo as well as perused the notes of arguments filed by the appellant. We come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed as reasoned below:
REASONING:-
6. We have gone through the section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We reproduce the same herein below:-
27. Penalties.-- [(1)] Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made 4 [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 4 [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;
[(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, 4 AE-5-2024 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.]
7. We have also gone through the order passed in the original consumer complaint no.CC/11/103. The same is reproduced herein below:-
1) त ार मांक-103/2011 अंशतः मा य कर यात येते.
(2) सामनेवाले यांनी त ारदारानं ा 300 चौरस फुट चटई े फाळाची सदिनका माक ं -302, मा य के या माणे .450/- ित चौरस फुट (चटई े ) बांधकाम शु क आका न व यामधुन यापवु ि वकारलेले .71,000/- (अ री पये ऐ काह र हजार मा ) वजा क न उवरीत र कम .64,000/- (अ री पये चौस हजार मा ) ि वका न या आदेशा या तारखेपासनु 45 िदवसांचे आंत त ारदारा बरोबर सदिनका िव / करारनामा करावा व तदनतं र 10 िदवसा या आंत सदर सदिनके चा ताबा िवकास करारना याम ये नमदु के ले या सोयी सिु वधासं ह त ारदारानं ा दयावा. या आदेशाची पतु ता नमदु के ले या कालावधीम ये न के यास तदनतं र आदेश पतु होईपयत त ारदारानं ा .1,000/- ितिदन माणे र कम दयावी.
(3) त ारदारांना दर यान या कालावधीम ये झाले या आिथक नक ु सानीब ल मानिसक ासाब ल आिण त ार खचाब ल सामनेवाले यानं ी र कम .3.50,000/- (अ री र कम पये तीन लाख प नास हजार मा ) त ारदारांना सदिनके चा ताबा देते वेळी दयावेत. अ यथा या आदेशाची पतू ता होई पयत 9 ट के याजासह एकूण र कम त ारदारांना दयावी.
(4) सामनेवाले न.ं 2 यांचे िव द त ारदारांनी सेवा सुिवधा िव यामधील कसरु िस द न के याने यां या िव दची त ार अमा य कर यात येते.5
AE-5-2024
8. We have also gone through the order passed by this Commission in Appeal no.A/14/52. The same is also reproduced herein below:-
1.The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The order passed by the District Forum dated 21/12/2013 is modified in respect of the compensation as District Forum not given any justification for awarding same. Hence the figure of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in operative clause no.3 be read as Rs.50,000/-. Rest of the order is maintained as it is.
9. We have gone through the major grounds of the appeal against the conviction order passed in Execution application no.30/2014. It is contended in the grounds that the original impugned order is not executable and appellant was ready and willing to hand over the keys of the flat to the respondent nos.1 & 2 i.e. original complainants. After going through the original impugned order, the present appellant is directed to hand over the 300 sq.ft. area, flat no.302 to the original complainants, after accepting the balance consideration amount. In the present case, the appellant himself has admitted that the flat no.302 does not have the 300 sq.ft. area. It is also admitted fact that all the aspects pertaining to the area of the flat are already discussed in the original consumer complaint order. The said order is modified to the extent of the compensation before this Commission in appeal preferred by the appellant. Remaining order was confirmed. Hence, the appellant taken a ground for the non-execution of the order for want of the area of the flat is not maintainable as in the appeal the original complaint order has reached to the finality. Therefore, facts need not to be again discussed which is already concluded in the original complaint order.
10.We have also gone through the order sheet dated 20/11/2014, in Execution application no.30/2014 before the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane, wherein it is mentioned that the complainant has given 6 AE-5-2024 a Rs.64,000/- demand draft as on 05/02/2014 to the present appellant. The same has been refused by the appellant. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant that the original complainants failed to pay the balance consideration amount cannot be acceptable.
11.The another ground taken by the appellant that as per section 363 of Cr.P.C. the free copy of the judgment is not provided by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane, while convicting the present appellant. We have gone through section 363 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced herein below:-
363. Copy of judgment to be given to the accused and other persons.--(1) When the accused is sentenced to imprisonment, a copy of the judgment shall, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment, be given to him free of cost.
12.Perusal of the aforesaid section does not show that if the copy of the judgment is not provided to the accused at the time of conviction, the trial cannot be fatal or illegal, maximum the accused getting the right to get the sentence suspended. This aspect may be irregularity on the part of the Judicial Magistrate, but not error in the judgment.
13.The appellant has taken a ground pertaining to the compensation awarded to the complainant as per section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The same is reproduced herein below:-
"When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced."7
AE-5-2024
14.After perusal of the said provision of Cr.P.C. we are of the opinion that as per section 27(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has power to award the compensation to the complainant in execution filed u/sec.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have also gone through the impugned order dated 05/03/2024 in Execution Application no.30/2014 reasoning quoted on the issue no.1 pertaining to the offence committed by the appellant u/sec.27(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are proper and does not require any interference.
15.From the discussion referred herein above we come to the conclusion that the grounds mentioned by the appellant in the present appeal execution is not proper and maintainable in law, we hold that the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane has rightly come to the conclusion that the present appellant has committed the offence punishable u/sec.27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, we are inclined to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. The present appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane in Execution Application no.EA/30/2014 is confirmed.
3. Appellant to surrender bail.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copy of the order be provided to the parties free of cost.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [Vijay C. Premchandani] Member MS 8