State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Prabhu Builders Through Its ... vs Vinodkumar Vijayan on 27 November, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR Revision Petition No. RP/15/50 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/07/2015 in Case No. EA/129/09 of District Nagpur) 1. M/S PRABHU BUILDERS THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,SHRI PRAMOD SURENDRANATH MISHRA R/O 83 GROUND FLOOR,SADIKABAD COLONY,NAGPUR NAGPUR 440030 Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. PARAG VASANT TARE R/O PRABHU SURENDRA APARTMENTS,33-A BHAU SAHEB SURVE NAGAR NAGPUR Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s) Revision Petition No. RP/15/51 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/07/2015 in Case No. EA/149/09 of District Nagpur) 1. M/S PRABHU BUILDERS THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,SHRI PRAMOD SURENDRANATH MISHRA R/O 83, GROUND FLOOR SADIKABAD COLONY NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHT ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. VINODKUMAR VIJAYAN R/O B-2 S-4 GOVIND GOURKHEDE COMPLEX HAJARI PAHAD SEMINARY HILLS NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASHT ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR MEMBER For the Petitioner: Adv.Mr S M Kasture For the Respondent: None ORDER (Passed on 27.11.2015) Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the two identical orders dated 29.07.2015 passed by majority in two execution application bearing Nos.129/2009 & 149/2009 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the said applications made by the petitioner for releasing him on bail have been rejected.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to both these petitions are as under.
The District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in two complaints bearing Nos.90/2006 & 250/2009 gave certain directions to petitioner / opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 for compliance. However, the petitioner / O.P.No.1 did not comply with the said directions. Therefore, the original complainants/respondents herein filed two execution applications bearing Nos. 129/2009 & 149/2009 before the Forum below against the petitioner under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner did not appear before the Forum after service of notice. Therefore, the Forum issued arrest warrant against him. Police arrested him and produced before the Forum in both the applications. The petitioner filed an application in both proceedings for cancellation of arrest warrant and releasing him on bail. The President of the Forum allowed the said applications and directed the petitioner to be released on bail on his personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount in each of the proceeding. However, the two Members of that Forum passed separate impugned orders and thereby rejected both the applications. In one impugned order passed in execution application No.129/2009, the Members of the Forum observed that till the petitioner fully complies the order passed in the complaint, he cannot be released on bail. In another impugned order passed in another execution application No.149/2009, the members of the Forum observed that if the petitioner is released on bail there is possibility of his absconding.
3. We have heard petitioner's advocate Mr S M Kasture and perused the papers placed before us in both petitions. The respondent / original complainant failed to appear in both petitions though duly served with the notice issued by this Commission, as seen from the postal acknowledgement receipt.
4. It is seen that during the pendency of both these revision petitions, as per interim order dtd.01.08.2015, passed by this Commission, the petitioner has been released on bail. Today he is also present before the Commission. The learned advocate of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will remain present before the Forum in both the execution proceedings till final decision of the same. He also submitted that the bail cannot be refused on the ground that the order passed in the complaint is not complied with. He further submitted that there was no reason for the Forum to believe that the petitioner will abscond if he is granted bail.
5. We find that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the execution application on getting bail. Therefore, both the impugned orders need to be set aside.
ORDER Both the revisions petitions are allowed.
The impugned orders dtd.29.07.2015 passed by majority in two execution application bearing Nos.129/2009 & 149/2009 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur are set aside. The applications for bail are granted.
The petitioner has been already released on bail as per interim orders dtd.01.08.2015 passed by this Commission and therefore, he shall remain present before the Forum on each date of hearing and if he has failed to appear without any cogent reason, the Forum will be at liberty to pass necessary order against him to secure his presence.
No order as to cost in both revision petitions.
Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR] MEMBER