State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Anandrao Alias Bhalchandra Keshav ... vs Smt.Malti V. Jabshetty & Ors. on 26 March, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI Date of filing : 10/12/2008 REVISION PETITION NO. 157 OF 2008 Date of order : 26/03/2010 IN COMPLAINTS IN EXE. APPL. NOS. 42/06, 34to37, 43,80,81,102,111,118,122,140,141,143,149,187,228,233,234,238,270/07, 282, 283,287,289,294,297,310,362,365,380,401,402,422,430, 439/07AND 1,10to20,22,24,35to38,43,46,47,50,51,54,68to71,81,104to107,113to119,149to151/08, 162, 169,171,173to175,177,180,183,184,187,208,215,216,227to232,235,237,238/08, 249,252,253,255,256,259,276,282,304,316,321,333,343,373,385to388 & 439/08 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SANGLI Mr.Anandrao alias Bhalchandra Keshav Paranjape Paranjape Nagar, Patrakar Nagar, Sangli. Petitioner/org. O.P. V/s. Smt.Malti V. Jabshetty Shri Raigonda Anna Patil & Anr. Brahmanpuri, Nr. Sambhaji Talim, Miraj, Sangli. Respondents/org. complainants Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Mr.Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the petitioner.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member District Consumer Forum has passed an order of issuance of non-bailable warrant returnable on 05/01/2009 in Execution Application No.51/2008. In the said execution proceeding, judgement debtor has not paid anything and therefore, non-bailable warrant came to be issued against present revision petitioner and present revision petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that he was paid servant of the Credit Society and he is not responsible for the same. We inquired from Advocate Mr.Subodh Gokhale whether his client had filed any appeal against the main order passed by the District Consumer Forum. If he had not filed any appeal, in execution proceeding he cannot be permitted to raise any issue in respect of his no liability to pay the amount as per award since he was paid servant. He should have filed appeal against the main award to get the appropriate order from the State Commission, but instead of filing appeal, he has preferred to file Revision Petition challenging the order of issuance of warrant. If any award became final and put in execution, District Consumer Forum is supposed to either take action against the judgement debtor under Section 25 (3) or to issue warrant under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for taking further steps to pass sentence against defaulting judgement debtor. Same has been done by the Forum below in execution application No.51/2008. The order passed by the Forum below in the circumstances issuing warrant against petitioner is just and proper and it is sustainable in law. We are finding no merit in the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner. There is no patent illegality committed by the Forum below in issuing warrant against the petitioner when he failed to pay decreetal amount as passed by the Forum below. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Revision Petition stands rejected.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member