State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Surendra Jangaluji Kharbade vs Mr. Sikandar Ramzan Khan on 12 December, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Execution Application No. EA/12/9
1. Dr. Surendra
Jangaluji Kharbade
303, Adwait
Apartment, Near St.
Joseph Convent
High School,
Jalgaon.
R/o.Nagpur B-9 Park View
Apt. Nagpur.
...........Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Mr. Sikandar
Ramzan Khan
Builder &
Developer
Khan Palace, Near Gujrathi Hospital Nasik Road Nasik.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MRS. Usha
S.Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
None present for complainant/executant.
Opponent-Mr.Sikandar Khan present a/w. his Advocate Mr.Ajay Pawar.
ORAL ORDER Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the complainant/executant. Opponent/accused-Mr.Sikandar Ramzan Khan present a/w. his Advocate Mr.Ajay Pawar. Present Execution Application is filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant/executant himself is an Advocate. Today matter is scheduled on Board as per request of the complainant/executant made by him through letter sent by Speed Post; still complainant/executant is not present. Complainant/executant failed to appear without any sufficient reason. Learned Counsel Mr.Pawar has requested to dismiss the execution application due to continuous absence of complainant/executant under Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He further urged that opponent/accused has already complied his part as per directions of the Honble National Commission. On the other hand, complainant/executant has failed to comply his part and therefore, present opponent/accused has filed Execution Application bearing No.08/2012.
2. Learned Advocate Mr.Pawar has drawn our attention to the order passed by Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2747/2003 and Revision Petition No.2765/2002. Both Revision Petitions were decided by common order dated 18/09/2003 by the Honble National Commission. In the said order, it is observed that As far the relief relating to grant of compensation is concerned, we find that as per direction of the State Commission, Mr.Sikandar Ramzan Khan has not paid that amount of `45,000/- and as per orders of the State Commission it shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. if this payment not been made within 30 days from the receipt of that order dated 13/05/1994. Ostensibly this has not been complied till date. Hence the Petitioner in RP 2765/2002 Mr.Sikandar Ramzan Khan is directed to work out the payable amount along with cost of `500/- awarded by the State Commission. The amount so worked out then be adjusted against the outstanding amount payable by the complainant to the OP, Mr.Sikandar Ramzn Khan. After completion of this payment, the OP will execute the sale deed within four weeks of payment. It is settled position of law that executing courts cannot go behind the decree.
3. We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of opponent/accused. Due to absence of complainant/executant, Execution Application bearing No.09/2012 is hereby dismissed. Opponent/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His Bail Bond stands cancelled. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 12th December 2013.
[HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd.