State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Ngpo Construction vs Mr.Durgadas V. Pisolkar & Mr.Kishor ... on 9 June, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI REVISION PETITION NO. 65 OF 2010 Date of filing : 07/05/2010 IN EXE. APPL. NO. 45 OF 2009 Date of order : 09/06/2010 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 27 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE M/s.NGPO Construction O/at Dharmavat Corner 202, Navi Peth, L.B.Shastri Marg, Pune 30 thru its Partner Mr.Parag Walchand Oza. Petitioner/org. O.P. V/s. Mr.Durgadas V. Pisolkar R/at 5-A, 3rd (Second) floor, CTs No.1020/3, F.P.No.368/3, Vighnaharta Apartments, Deep Bunglow Chowk, Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Bhamburda, Pune. Respondent/org. complainant AND REVISION PETITION NO. 66 OF 2010 Date of filing : 07/05/2010 IN EXE. APPL. NO. 46 OF 2009 Date of order : 09/06/2010 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 26 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE M/s.NGPO Construction O/at Dharmavat Corner 202, Navi Peth, L.B.Shastri Marg, Pune 30 thru its Partner Mr.Parag Walchand Oza. Petitioner/org. O.P. V/s. 1. Mr.Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar 2. Mrs.Kirti Kishor Pinglikar Both r/at Flat No.3A, CTS No.1020/3, F.P.No.368/3, Deep Bunglow Chowk, Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune-16. Respondents/org. complainants Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Mr.Rahul Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member These two Revision Petitions have been filed by M/s.NGPO Construction aggrieved by the fact that in two execution proceedings Nos.45 & 46/2009, District Consumer Forum Pune has been pleased to issue warrant of arrest (NBW) against the petitioner since they failed to appear in the Forum below to answer the charge. The facts need not be stated in detail. Suffice it to say that common award came to be passed on the complaints lodged by two complainants against the builders/developers who is petitioner herein. According to Advocate Mr.Gandhi, flat is already given in possession of the flat purchasers and he is simply required to convey the title by executing Conveyance Deed after procuring completion certificate from the concerned local authority. He has tried to explain to us the difficulties he is facing in procuring completion certificate. We make it clear that difficulties faced by builder/developer vis--vis Pune Municipal Corporation is his botheration and we are not concerned with those difficulties and our concern is whether the order passed by the Forum below is complied with and when it is not complied with, the Forum below has rightly taken cognizance of the same in execution proceedings instituted under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The builder/developer committing default in complying with the order passed by the Forum below has to face the charge under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for facing trial under Section 27 he has to present himself before the Forum below on the day on which the execution proceeding is posted. It appears that on the day when the revision petitioner was required to present himself before the Forum below in the execution proceedings, the petitioner in both these Revision Petitions remained absent and that is why non-bailable warrant came to be issued against him in both the execution proceedings. In the circumstances, we are finding that no patent illegality has been committed by the District Consumer Forum in taking this particular course of action strictly in accordance with the law. If the person proceeded against remains absent in the Forum below particularly in a proceeding under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 going on against him, the Forum below is left with no option, but to issue non-bailable warrant just to procure attendance of such person who is fleeing away from justice. In the light of this fact, we are finding that there is no merit in both the Revision Petitions filed by M/s.NGPO Construction. We make it clear that it is advisable on the part of petitioner that he should immediately approach District Consumer Forum Pune to present himself before the District Consumer Forum and should apply for cancellation of warrant and seek bail as per the guidelines issued by the State Commission in one of its landmark judgement. This will save him from the clutches of law.
With these observations, both these Revision Petitions stand disposed of.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.