National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Surendra vs M/S. Sikandar Ramzan Khan on 1 April, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 2 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2013 in Complaint No. 17/2011 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. DR. SURENDRA S/O SH.JANGALUJI KHARBADE, B-9 PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, NEAR K.C PARK,, P.O NAGPUR - 440 001 MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. SIKANDAR RAMZAN KHAN R/O KHAN PALACE, NASHIK ROAD, MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : NEMO For the Respondent : Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate
(through video conferencing)
Dated : 01 Apr 2021 ORDER
1. Called out.
2. No one is present for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he does not have access to the case-file since he is in Mumbai and the case-file is in his Delhi office. As such, the learned counsel could not assist the bench.
3. Perused the material on record.
4. Between 09.04.2014 to 22.09.2017 the case was dismissed in default on o4 occasions and then restored. On 16.04.2019 no one was present for the appellants, the case was adjourned. On 12.03.2020, again, no one was present for the appellants, the case was adjourned. Today, on 01.04.2021, yet again, no one is present for the appellants.
5. It is deemed appropriate to dispose of this appeal, pending since 2014, on the basis of the record.
6. In para 2 of the impugned Order dated 12.12.2013 of the State Commission it is recorded that the execution application in question has been filed before the State Commission under section 25 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986').
7. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal shows that the appeal before this Commission has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986.
8. A perusal of the State Commission's impugned Order of 12.12.2013 makes it evident that it has been passed under sub-section (3) of section 25 of the Act 1986 (Enforcement of order of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission).
9. Appeal against an order passed under sub-section (3) of section 25 does not lie under section 19 (Appeals), or, for that matter, under section 27A (Appeal against an order passed under section 27) of the Act 1986.
10. The instant appeal (execution) is dismissed as not maintainable.
11. The appeal has been dismissed on maintainability. This Commission has not gone into merits. The appellants are free to agitate their case before any appropriate forum / court as per the law.
12. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the appellants and to their learned counsel within three days from today. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission today itself.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER