State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anil Ramkrushna Khare vs Vijaya Nitin Khadgi on 16 February, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/373/2019
ANIL RAMKRUSHNA KHARE
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PLOT NO. 32,SHRIRAM NAGAR , UDAY NAGAR CHOWK,
NAGPUR.440024,MAHARASHTRA.
DINESH RAMKISAN SUPARIWALE
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O.KAMAL NIWAS, LALGANJ,KHADIPURA,MEHANDIBAGH ROAD,
LALGANJ POLICE STATION, NAGPUR 440027,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
NEERAJ SADASHIVRAO DHAKITE
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O.C.O.SMT. VIJAYA KHADGI, PLOT NO. 102, SADGURU NAGAR,
CHINTAMANI NAGAR 1,MANEWADA BESA ROAD NAGPUR.,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/374/2019
ANIL RAMKRUSHNA KHARE
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PLOT NO. 32,SHRIRAM NAGAR , UDAY NAGAR CHOWK,
NAGPUR.440024,MAHARASHTRA.
DINESH RAMKISAN SUPARIWALE
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O.KAMAL NIWAS, LALGANJ,KHADIPURA,MEHANDIBAGH ROAD,
LALGANJ POLICE STATION, NAGPUR 440027,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
VIJAYA NITIN KHADGI
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. PLOT NO. 102, SADGURU NAGAR, CHINTAMANI NAGAR
1,MANEWADA BESA ROAD NAGPUR.,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ADV. S.K. PAUNIKAR FOR THE APPELLANT.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NONE
DATED: 16/02/2026
ORDER
COMMON ORDER (Delivered on 16/02/2026) PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON'BLE MEMBER.
1. These appeal are preferred by the appellant/execution non- applicants/accused persons, Anil Ramkrushna Khare and Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale, being aggrieved by the order passed on 06/11/2019 in Execution Application No.EA/17/125 and Execution Application No.EA/17/126 (for short as "impugned order") by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short as "learned District Forum"), vide Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short as "Act of 1986").
The parties of the present appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as execution applicants (complainants) and execution non-applicants (opposite parties/accused) respectively for better appreciation.
2. The Execution Applicants (Complainants) contended that the non- applicants had willfully failed to comply with the learned District Forum's order dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320. Said orders required the non-applicants either to execute the registered sale deed of Plots bearing Nos.56 , 57 and 38 after receiving the balance amount, or alternatively, to refund Rs.75,460/- by appellant No.1 and Rs.32,920/- by appellant No.2 with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and costs of Rs.5,000/- each within 30 days. Despite knowledge of the said order, the non- applicants neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the money within the stipulated period. The applicant submitted that such deliberate and intentional disobedience amounted to contempt of the order attracting punishment. So, the Execution Applicants (Complainants) filed the executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 against the execution non-applicants (opposite parties/accused) before the learned District Forum for appropriate sentence under Section 27 of the Act of 1986.
3. On the contrary, the Execution Non-applicants (Opposite Parties/Accused) contested the proceedings by denying any willful or deliberate disobedience of the order. They contended that execution of the sale deed could not be carried out due to non-availability of the requisite non-agricultural permission from the competent authority. They submitted that the non- compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate, but arose from legal and procedural constraints beyond their control. They also stated that they were always ready and willing to refund the amount as directed by the Commission. On these grounds, they asserted that no contempt or breach of the order was made out against them. Thus, they prayed for to held them not guilty for non- compliance of orders dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320.
4. After the non-applicants appeared before the learned District Forum, on 01/08/2019, explained the substance of the offence under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 to the non-applicants, who pleaded not guilty. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit on 11/03/2019 and further adduced evidence by way of examination-in-chief and cross-examination on behalf of the non-applicants on 16/04/2019. Later, the non-applicants filed on record compliance affidavits on 29/04/2019 and 08/08/2019. Subsequently, on 09/09/2019, the non-applicants filed their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short as "Cr.P.C") denying deliberate disobedience and contending that the delay was due to pending necessary permissions with statement that they deposited the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- in compliance with order dated 20/07/2017. The learned District Forum, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, concluded that the non-applicants had have deliberately disobeyed the order committing an offence under Section 27 and thereby, convicted the non-applicants in both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126, and also imposed a sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One Year each and fine Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with cost of proceeding Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each.
5. Being aggrieved by impugned orders, both appeals are preferred on the ground that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of judicial mind and gross violation of procedure, making it bad in law and liable to be quashed. The learned District Forum failed to consider the compliance of order by depositing payment of amount as it is impossible to execute sale of plots. The learned District Forum also failed to extend fair opportunity to appellants and consider the documentary evidence produced on record. Despite the appellants having paid refund amount directed by the learned District Forum, conviction was passed in a high-handed manner without cogent reasons. Thus, they prayed for to set aside the impugned order being suffers from legal infirmity and illegality.
6. It is important to note that the respondent/original execution applicants of both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 and appellants/execution non-applicants/accused persons have filed on record their written notes of arguments. However, the learned Advocates of the respondents of both appeals/original execution applicants of both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 failed to appear for advancing oral arguments, instead ample and fair time given. So, we have heard the oral argument advanced by learned Advocate Mrs. S. K. Paunikar for the appellants of the both appeals. No argument advanced by the learned Advocate of the respondents of both appeals/original execution applicants of both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 as none present on behalf of them. As such, both the matters be taken on for judgment taking into consideration of the material available on record. We have also carefully perused the entire record and proceedings in these appeals. During the course of hearing, on 26/11/2025, the learned Advocate Mrs.S.K.Paunikar for both the appellants of these appeals also filed on record the affidavit of clarification in respect to deposit of decretal amount incompliance of dated 20/07/2017. We have also seen the said clarification affidavits.
7. From the contention of the parties available on record, the following points arise for our determination and we have recorded our findings against each of them as follows;
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Whether the impugned orders dated
06/11/2019 passed by the learned District
... In the Negative.
Forum in Execution Application
Nos.EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 suffers from
any infirmity or illegality?
2. Whether the impugned orders dated
06/11/2019 passed by the learned District
... In the
Forum in Execution Application Nos.
Affirmative.
EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 needs any
interference?
3. What Order? ... As per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1:
8. We have carefully examined the material placed on record. It is clear from the material on record that appellant Nos.1 and 2 of both the appeals were directed by the common order dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320 either to execute the sale deed of plots bearing Nos.56 , 57 and 38 after receiving the balance amount, or alternatively, to refund Rs.75,460/- and Rs.32,920/- jointly and severally with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and costs of Rs.5,000/- each within 30 days. The learned District Forum held the appellants guilty of deliberate disobedience under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 and sentenced them to one-year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The appellants challenged it on the ground that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and illegality as it failed to consider the compliance of order by depositing payment of amount as it is impossible to execute sale of plots and extend no fair opportunity without considering the documentary evidence produced on record, they convicted in a high-handed manner. In these circumstances, the appellants contends that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed. As such, the material on record is need to be carefully looked into.
9. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that on 01/08/2019 the learned District Forum explained to the appellants/accused persons the substance of the offence under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 in accordance with the requirement of Section 251 of the CrPC against which they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the respondent/original execution applicants of both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 filed their respective evidence affidavits on 13/03/2019 and recorded further examination-in-chief and cross- examination on 16/04/2019 on behalf of the non-applicants of both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126. Subsequently, on 09/09/2019, the non- applicants of both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 filed their respective statements under Section 313 of the CrPC and one pursis on 14/08/2019 to treat their compliance affidavits filed on 08/08/2019 as their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC.
10. On careful perusal of material available on record, the appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare in FA No.A/19/373 stated under clause 7 of his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC filed on 09/09/2019 at page No.70 and 71 that he paid Rs.1,90,000/- in two installment, firstly on 16/04/2019 Rs.95,000/- by DD No.033924 dated 12/04/2019 drawn on Central Bank of India. As per the compliance affidavit of appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare produced at page Nos.64 to 66 in FA No.A/19/373, he had deposited half amount of Rs.95,000/- by demand draft on 16/04/2019 out of calculated amount of Rs.1,90,000/- includes principal amount of Rs.75,460/-, interest thereon Rs.99,540/-, Cost Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.5,000/-, as per clause No.6. He also stated to be deposited remaining amount of Rs.95,000/- by demand draft No.033924 dated 12/04/2019, as per clause No.8. The appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale in FA No.A/19/373 stated under clause 8 of his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC filed on 09/09/2019 at page No.72 and 73 that he jointly with Anil Ramkrushna Khare were paid Rs.1,90,050/- in installments, out of which he deposited Rs.95,050/-. As per the compliance affidavit of appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale produced at page Nos.67 to 69 in FA No.A/19/373, he had deposited half amount of Rs.95,032/- by demand draft on 16/04/2019 out of calculated amount of Rs.1,90,068/-, as per clause No.7. He also stated to be deposited remaining amount of Rs.70,050/- by demand draft No.004028 dated 26/04/2019 drawn on Saraswat Bank Gandhibagh Nagpur and undertake to pay balance Rs.25,000/-, as per clause No.8. The record particularly pursis filed on 14/08/2019 at page Nos.75 and 76 in FA No.A/19/373 shows that the appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale stated under clause 2 about the payment of Rs.95,050/- by DD No.524012 of Rs.70,050/- and DD No.534559 of Rs.25,000/- drawn on State Bank of India Nagpur respectively. Said pursis also disclosed that appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale in FA No.A/19/373 deposited Rs.95,050/- and appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare in FA No.A/19/373 had deposited Rs.95,000/- jointly total of Rs.1,90,050/-. The said pursis particularly at page Nos.75 & 76 in FA No.A/19/373 under clause no.3 shows that the balance amount of Rs.3,037/- is required to be paid till 05/09/2019. However, the receipt for payment to Government dated 29/04/2019 at page No.77 in FA No.A/19/373 showed that appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare had deposited Rs.95,000/- in EA/17/125 vide DD No.033924 dated 12/04/2019. Another the receipt for payment to Government dated 11/06/2019 at page No.77 in FA No.A/19/373 also showed that appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale had deposited Rs.70,050/- in EA/17/125. So also, the receipt for payment to Government dated 08/08/2019 at page No.78 in FA No.A/19/373 showed that appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale through Adv.Agrawal had deposited Rs.25,000/- in EA/17/125. These receipts were appeared to be issued by the Registrar, Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. But there are no documents of payment as the balance amount of Rs.3,037/- shown to be paid.
11. We have also seen from the record that the appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare in FA No.A/19/374 stated under clause 7 of his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC filed on 09/09/2019 at page No.62 and 63 that he paid Rs.1,90,000/- in two installment, firstly on 16/04/2019 Rs.45,700/- by DD No.033964 dated 27/05/2019 drawn on Central Bank of India. The appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale in FA No.A/19/374 stated under clause 8 of his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC filed on 09/09/2019 at page No.64 to 66 that he jointly with Anil Ramkrushna Khare were paid Rs.91,400/- in installments, out of which he deposited Rs.45,700/-. The record particularly pursis filed on 14/08/2019 at page Nos.68 and 69 shows that the appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale in FA No.A/19/374 stated under clause 2 about the payment of Rs.45,700/- by DD No.523979 of Rs.20,700/- and DD No.534560 of Rs.25,000/- drawn on State Bank of India Nagpur respectively. Said pursis particularly at page Nos.69 shows also disclosed that appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale in FA No.A/19/374 deposited Rs.45,700/- and appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare in FA No.A/19/374 had deposited Rs.45,700/- jointly total of Rs.91,400/-. The said pursis particularly at page Nos.69 in FA No.A/19/374 shows that the balance amount of Rs.1,292/- is required to be paid till 05/09/2019. However, the receipt for payment to Government dated 29/04/2019 at page No.70 in FA No.A/19/374 showed that appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale through Adv.R.H.Agrawal had deposited Rs.20,700/- in EA/17/126 vide DD No.523979 dated 26/04/2019. Another receipt for payment to Government dated 11/06/2019 at page No.70 in FA No.A/19/374 showed that appellant Anil Ramkrushna Khare had deposited Rs.45,700/- in EA/17/126. So also, the receipt for payment to Government dated 08/08/2019 at page No.71 in FA No.A/19/374 showed that appellant Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale through Adv.Agrawal had deposited Rs.25,000/- in EA/17/125 vide DD No.524560 dated 03/08/2019. These receipts were appeared to be issued by the Registrar, Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. But there are no documents of payment as the balance amount of Rs.1,292/- shown to be paid.
12. It is important to mention that the Act of 1986 is a beneficial legislation enacted to provide speedy and effective relief to consumers. Section 27 of the Act of 1986 is intended to ensure strict enforcement of consumer forum orders and to deter deliberate delay and non-compliance.
13. It is seen from the common order dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320 that the non-applicants in both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 were directed either to execute the sale deed of plots bearing Nos.56 , 57 and 38 after receiving the balance amount, or alternatively, to refund Rs.75,460/- and Rs.32,920/- jointly and severally with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and costs of Rs.5,000/- each within 30 days. It is also clearly seen from the material placed on record that till the filing of both execution applications, there were no compliance made by the appellants. The explanation that execution of the sale deed was not possible due to absence of non-agricultural permission is not acceptable as they were under duty to refund amount as directed. In such case, the alternative direction of refund was binding and enforceable. So, the failure to comply with the full refund direction beyond the given period amounts to disobedience of the order dated 20/07/2017. No doubt, non-applicants in both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 made certain deposits only after execution proceedings were initiated and after action under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 was commenced. Such payments cannot be treated as voluntary or timely compliance. Moreover, the payments made were incomplete as a balance amount of Rs.3,037/- remained unpaid in Execution Application No.EA/17/125 and an amount of Rs.1,292/- also remained unpaid in Execution Application No.EA/17/126. The record also shows that there was no documentary material produced to show payment of these balance amounts even till the passing of the impugned orders dated 06/11/2019.
14. We have carefully perused the finding record by the learned District Forum and found that Forum has followed the due procedure prescribed by law. The substance of offence under Section 27 was duly explained to the appellants, evidence was properly considered and statements under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded. The learned District Forum after considering the material on record come to the just conclusion that both appellants/original non-applicants in both executions bearing EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 remained defaulters from the date of the original order till the passing of the impugned orders rejecting their delay payment as a compliance. So, the impugned orders dated 06/11/2019 of the learned District Forum are based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence. As such, the impugned orders dated 06/11/2019 of the learned District Forum do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, or perversity. Accordingly, we answer this point in the negative.
AS TO POINT NOS.2 AND 3:
15. On careful perusal of the record, it is seen that in FA No.A/19/373 the appellants Anil Ramkrushna Khare and Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale deposited amounts totaling Rs.1,90,050/- in installments and only a balance amount of Rs.3,037/- remained unpaid. Similarly, in FA No. A/19/374, the appellants had deposited Rs.91,400/- in installments and a balance amount of Rs.1,292/- was still due establishing that in both matters the alleged payments were incomplete. However, during the course of proceedings of these appeals, the appellants filed pursis on 26/11/2025 stating that they deposited an amount of Rs.8,900/- in EA/17/125 and Rs.3,800/- in EA/17/126 against remaining amount with interest supported with two receipts for payments issued by the Additional District Commission, Nagpur. As such, the appellants Anil Ramkrushna Khare and Dinesh Ramkisan Supariwale had now deposited decretal amount and stated to be complied with refund direction under the common order dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320.
16. It is also material to note that compliance under the Act of 1986 must be full, unconditional and within a reasonable time. A partial payment or delayed compliance does not amount to compliance in the eyes of law. If delayed and incomplete compliance is accepted as sufficient, it would defeat the object of Section 27 and dilute the authority of consumer fora. Such an approach would encourage defaulters to prolong litigation and frustrate the rights of consumers.
However, the purpose of Section 27 is not merely punitive but also corrective. The provision is intended to compel compliance and to ensure that the consumer ultimately receives the relief granted by the learned District Forum.
17. In the present proceedings, the appellants were initially failed to comply with the common order dated 20/07/2017 in Complaint Nos.CC/15/319 and CC/15/320, and remained defaulters for a considerable period. However, during the pendency of the appeals, they have deposited the entire decretal amount along with interest. Thus, the refund direction has been fully satisfied on 26/11/2025 making remaining payment with interest. In these peculiar facts, the initial default cannot be ignored or condoned. At the same time, the subsequent full compliance with interest on 26/11/2025 shows that the object of the Act of 1986 has been achieved. Therefore, a just, fair and reasonable view requires that a lenient approach be adopted on the question of sentence in view of subsequent full compliance with interest while the finding of non- compliance and the initiation of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 are upheld. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the appellants/original non-executants in Execution Application Nos.EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 deserves to be modified and is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Commission. However, considering the prolonged delay, avoidable litigation and wastage of judicial time, each appellant must saddle with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund. This modification appropriately balances the deterrent object of Section 27 with the ends of justice and the overarching goal of consumer welfare. Accordingly, we answer the point No.2 in the affirmative and in response to point No.3, we proceed to pass the following order;
ORDER
1. Both appeals bearing FA No.A/19/373 and FA No.A/19/374 are hereby partly allowed.
2. The finding of non-compliance recorded under the impugned orders dated 06/11/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Execution Application Nos. EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 is hereby confirmed.
3. The impugned orders dated 06/11/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Execution Application Nos.EA/17/125 and EA/17/126 are hereby set aside with modified only to the extent of sentence and the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the appellants/original non- executants is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Commission.
4. Both appellants in appeals bearing FA No.A/19/373 and FA No.A/19/374 are directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund within a period of four weeks, for wasting the due process of the Consumer Redressal Forum for delayed compliance.
5. Both parties are directed to appear on 16/03/2026 before the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur for suffering the sentences of imprisonment till the rising of the Commission.
6. A copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
7. A copy shall immediately forward to the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Commission), Nagpur.
..................J KALYANI KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER