State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Chemisol Adhesive Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Shri Balu Tukaram Koyande & Ors. on 18 February, 2011
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No. RP/10/123
(Arisen out of Order Dated
27/09/2010 in Case No. 160/2005 of District Thane)
1.M/S CHEMISOL ADHESIVE PVT LTD 7/10 BOTAWALA BUILDING 8 HORIMAN CIRCLE FORT MUMBAI
2. THE PROPRIETOR, M/S RAJESH TRADING CO.
BHANU NAGAR DOMBIVALI EAST THANE ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI BALU TUKARAM KOYANDE GANPATI ASHISH CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD BLOCK NO 14 PLOT NO RH 42 MIDC RESIDENCY AREA DOMBIVALI EAST THANE
2. GANPATI ASHISH CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD THROUGH SHRI DILIP PATANGE, PLOT NO RH42 MIDC RESIDENCIAL AREA DOMBIVALI EAST THANE ...........Respondent(s) Revision Petition No. RP/10/124 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/09/2010 in Case No. 159/2005 of District Thane)
1. M/S CHEMISOL ADHESIVE PVT LTD 7/10 BOTAWALA BUILDING 8 HORIMAN CIRCLE FORT MUMBAI ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI DHANAJI SHANKAR DALVI MADHU PATIL CHAWL ROOM NO 3 GHARIVILY MANPADA ROAD PREMIER COLONY DOMBIVALI EAST THANE ...........Respondent(s) Revision Petition No. RP/10/125 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/09/2010 in Case No. 161/07 of District Thane)
1. M/S CHEMISOL ADHESIVE PVT LTD 7/10 BOTAWALA BUILDING 8 HORIMAN CIRCLE FORT MUMBAI ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI LALU DHAOO GHAYVAT GANPATI ASHISH CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD BLOCK NO 14 PLOT NO RH 42 MIDC RESIDENCY AREA BOMBIVALI EAST THANE ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member Hon'ble Mrs. J.D.Yengal MEMBER PRESENT:
None for the petitioners.
Mr.Nagraj Hoskeri, Advocate for the respondents/opponents.
ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member These three Revision Petitions are directed against the common order dated 24/09/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane relating to the execution proceeding No.70/2007 Shri Balu Shantaram Koyande & Anr. V/s. Shri Sunil Patel, Managing Director of M/s.Chemisol Adhesive Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; execution proceeding No.72/2007 Shri Dhanaji Shankar Dalvi & Anr. V/s. Shri Sunil Patel, Managing Director of M/s.Chemisol Adhesive Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; and execution proceeding No.73/2007 Shri Lahu Dhaoo Ghayvat & Anr. V/s. Shri Sunil Patel, Managing Director of M/s.Chemisol Adhesive Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. As per the impugned order which is nothing but an order-sheet (Roznama), application for adjournment appears to have been rejected and it was mentioned that if the orders which are subject of these respective execution proceedings are not satisfied, then further directions as per the law would be given (in those execution proceedings) and it is also directed the opponents-revisionists to give Personal Bond of `5,000/- for their appearance. It is not made clear under which provision the execution applications are filed i.e. whether under section 25 or under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). However, later direction to give Personal Bond indicates that the execution applications are filed for execution under section 27 of the Act.
At the time of hearing on admission today, in spite of notice of the date, revisionists or their Counsel remained absent. Advocate Shri Nagaraj Hoskeri appeared for and on behalf of opponents and opposed the admission. Perused the record.
It is not disputed that the alleged impugned orders passed in execution arises out of execution applications filed to ensure compliance of orders passed in consumer complaints Nos.159/2005 to 161/2005, decided on 11/12/2006 and which were confirmed in appeal by the State Commission and in Revision by the National Commission. As per the statement made by the revisionists, they have taken up the matter further to the Apex Court, where the matter is still pending and admittedly, there is no stay to the execution of the impugned orders. It further appears that when the matter was in revision before the National Commission, as per the interim direction dated 24/08/2009, as a condition of stay, the amount as per the impugned order was deposited in the State Commission. By an order dated 29/03/2010 the National Commission has disposed of the Revision Petition confirming the order of the State Commission vis--vis the order passed by the District Consumer Forum i.e. the impugned orders. No directions have been given by the National Commission in respect of the amount deposited as a condition of stay, supra. Since the amount is deposited in the State Commission as per the direction of the National Commission in the Revision Petition before it, that amount is certainly under the control of the National Commission and disbursement of the said amount is to be made as per the directions of the National Commission.
As per the impugned order dated 24/09/2010 which is subject matter of these Revisions, it is revealed that the revisionists sought time again and again to seek necessary directions in respect of the amount deposited in the State Commission as per the directions of the National Commission, supra and in spite such time given and availed, they failed to secure any direction. There is no direction from the Apex Court either. Under these circumstances, as per the impugned order dated 24/09/2010, District Consumer Forum after recording these facts, observed that if no compliance is made till next date i.e. 30/09/2010 to satisfy the impugned orders passed in the consumer complaints which are subject matters of the execution applications, District Consumer Forum would issue further directions as per the law. Thus, there is no order passed affecting rights of the parties. Therefore, such observation or opinion expressed by the District Consumer Forum cannot be a subject matter of any Revision and revisional power cannot be invoked in respect of the same.
As far as another direction to the revisionist that they should give Personal Bond/Bail of `5,000/- for their appearance in the execution proceedings also cannot be faulted with if the execution proceedings are the one under section 27 of the Act. Securing personal appearance in this form is necessary in a case of execution under section 27 of the Act. Therefore, such direction also cannot be a subject matter for invoking revisional powers of this Commission.
A useful reference on the point can be made to a decision of this Commission in First Appeal No.1190/2009 Amir Ali Irani V/s. Mr. Rajesh Sukhtankar (decided on 27/09/2010) and Suo Motu Revision Petition No.35/2010 Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai V/s. Mr.Rajesh Sukhtankar & Ors. (decided on 27/09/2010).
For the reasons stated above, we find these Revision Petitions are not maintainable and certainly, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned so called orders dated 24/09/2010, supra, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, the order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Revision Petitions Nos.123/2010 to 125/2010 stand dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 18th February 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mrs. J.D.Yengal] MEMBER dd