State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Bharat Anandrao Barkade vs Mr. Sambhaji Venkat Patil on 8 January, 2016
A/15/921 1/3
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/15/921
(Arisen out of Order Dated 22/07/2015 in Execution Application No.75/2012 of District
Forum, Pune)
Mr.Bharat Anandrao Barkade,
Proprietor, M/s.Shri Premdas Constructions,
1471, Sadashiv Peth, Opp.S.P.College, Tilak
Road, Pune 411 030. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Mr.Sambhaji Venkat Patil
Thro' C.A.Mrs.Vrushali V. Gogate,
Sayantara Society, S.No.16/2/3, 23, Vithal
Park, Manikbaug, Sinhagad Road,
Pune 411 051. ............Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Usha S. Thakare, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dhanraj Khamatkar, MEMBER
For the Appellant:
Adv.Ajay Pawar
For the Respondent:
None
ORDER
Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member [1] Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in execution application no.75/2012 dated 22/07/2015, original opponent/accused, Bharat A. Barkade has preferred the present appeal. By the order under challenge, accused Bharat A. Barkade was convicted for offence punishable u/s.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act']. He was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
[2] According to the original complainant/respondent, he had A/15/921 2/3 decided on 22/10/2009. Said consumer complaint was allowed. The opponent was directed to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant within two months from the date of order after receipt of balance amount of consideration. It was directed to hand over possession of the subject flat to the complainant without delay. The opponent/accused avoided to pay the order. He willfully disobeyed the order. The complainant filed execution application u/s.27 of the Act and requested to punish the accused as per provisions of law.
[3] The accused denied the charge leveled against him with defence of total denial. After considering the evidence on record and documents on record, learned district forum was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s.27 of the Act and sentenced the accused. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
[4] Heard learned counsel Mr.Ajay Pawar for the accused. None appeared for the respondent/original complainant on the date of hearing the matter on merit. It is brought to out knowledge that during pendency of the appeal, the matter was settled between the parties. Consent terms were executed between the parties and those consent terms were notarized on 07/11/2015. Consent terms are filed on record. Accused/opponent has filed on record a copy of joint pursis filed in execution application no.75/12. Copy of joint pursis was filed by the complainant/executant and copy of order passed by the learned District Forum on 07/11/2015 are also on record. Documents disclose that the disputes are settled between the parties outside the Commission. In another complaint no.257/13, joint pursis is filed by the parties. In view of joint pursis, another complaint no.257/13 was disposed off.
A/15/921 3/3Execution application under Sec.27 of the Act is already decided. Permission cannot be given to withdraw the same.
[6] Present appeal is filed to challenge the order of conviction and sentence. The offence punishable under Sec.27 of the Act was completed when the order was not complied. Subsequently, the parties have arrived at settlement. Settlement between the parties mitigates circumstances. In view of the mitigating circumstances, the accused/opponent is entitled for leniency which will affect quantum of sentence. The courts/fora are there to settle the dispute between the parties and not to encourage the dispute between the parties. In view of the settlement, accused is entitled for reduction in sentence with this view, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Appeal is partly allowed.
2) Order passed in Execution Application No.EA/12/75
dated 22/07/2015 is hereby modified as under:-
(i) Accused Bharat A. Barkade is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
(ii) The accused has already deposited fine amount.
Hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed off.
Pronounced
Dated 8th January, 2016.
[Usha S. Thakare]
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
[Dhanraj Khamatkar]