State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Sanjay R. Bhandare, vs Shri Alleppey P. Bhat, on 2 February, 2010
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HONBLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.
148/2006 Date of filing: 05/12/2006
In Misc. Application
No.37/2004
In Complaint
No.307/2002 Date of order: 02/02/2010
District Forum: Mumbai
Suburban.
Shri Sanjay R. Bhandare,
Promoter & Builder,
Dr. R.D. Bhandare CHS
(Prop),
10/17, New Shastri
Nagar,
Mulund (W), Mumbai
400 082.
..Petitioner/
Judgement Debtor/
Org. Opp. Party
V/s.
Shri Alleppey P. Bhat,
104, Krishna Complex,
Dada Patil Wadi Road,
Thane (W), 400602.
..Respondents/
Decree Holder/
Org. Complainant
Quorum:
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. S. P. Lale, Honble Member.
Present:
Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This Revision Petition arises out of order dated 31.10.2006 passed in Execution Application No.37/2004, in Consumer Complaint No. District Consumer Forum/MSD/307/2002, Shri Alleppey P. Bhat V/s. Shri Sanjay R. Bhandare, by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District.(2)
Heard Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent.(3)
In the instant case after seeing that earlier execution proceeding u/sec. 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being frustrated, Complainant - Decree holder preferred another execution application u/sec. 27 of the Act. Objections to said proceeding were taken by the judgement debtor opposite party. Forum below held that execution proceeding u/sec. 27 of the Act is maintainable and accordingly directed, as per impugned order, to proceed with the said execution proceeding. Aggrieved thereby this revision is preferred.(4)
Ld. Counsel appearing in this revision petition fairly conceded that execution proceeding u/sec. 27 is tenable and that the judgement debtor cannot go beyond the award passed. We appreciate his such contention. However, before parting with the order, we record that forum below is expected to follow appropriate procedure of summary trial in execution proceeding U/sec. 27 of the Act. In the circumstance, we find this revision petition is devoid of any substance and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Revision Petition stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(S.P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode) Member Presiding Judicial Member ep