State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalgaon Jilha Upasana Urban Co Op Credit ... vs Ashok Kautik Attarde on 2 November, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.RP/17/177
(Circuit Bench at Nasik)
1.Jalgaon Jilha Upasana Urban
Co-op.Credit Society Ltd.
Through its Chairman
06, 3rd floor, Old B.J.Market
Jalgaon, Taluka & District Jalgaon
2.Narendra Shivdas Patil
Parag Apartment, Ring Road
Jalgaon, Taluka & District Jalgaon
3. Pandurang R.Sonwane
R/o.Adawad, Talluka Yawal, District Jalgaon
4. Kiran Ashok Mahajan
R/o. At Khedi, Taluka Amalner
District Jalgaon
5.Chandrakanat Pundlik Patil
R/o.Jalgaon, Taluka & District Jalgaon
6.Kiran Pundlik Patil
R/o.Jalgaon, Taluka & District Jalgaon
7. Jitendra Shivdas Patil
R/o.Yogeshwar Nagar, Jalgaon
8.Purshottam Amrut Savdekar
R/o.Asoda, Taluka & District Jalgaon
9.Sau.Kavita Jitendra Patil
R/o.Yogeshwar Nagar, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District Jalgaon
10. Sau.Sharda Rajesh Kolhe
R/o.Yogeshwar Nagar, Jalgaon
11. Ashok Gopal Mahajan
R/o.at Post Khedi, Taluka Amalner
District Jalgaon
12.Mr.Kishor Chaggan Nemande
R/o.Vittal Peth, Jalgaon
Taluka & District Jalgaon .....Applicants/revision petitioners
Versus
1.Mr.Ashok Kautik Attarde
2.Sau.Malti Ashok Attarde
3.Shri Gopal Ashok Attarde
4.Shri Pradip Ashok Attarde
R/o.Asodekar Wada, At Post Nanded .........Respondents
Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon
1
BEFORE: JusticeA.P.Bhangale, President
A.K.Zade, Member
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Heard learned advocate Mr.Arvind K.Tiwari for the revision petitioners.
This revision petition is preferred by Jalgaon Jilha Upasana Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. and 11 others against respondents (original complainants).
It appears that Execution Application no.106/2017 was preferred by complainants in order to enforce the final order passed on 26/04/2017 in consumer complaint no.186/2015. It appears that the award holders/ complainants moved an application for execution of the order and it was admitted by Learned President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon. Aggrieved by admission of the application on the ground that the application was beyond the period of limitation and was not accompanied with delay condonation application, revision petitioners have preferred this revision petition. It is also contention of the revision petitioners that the Hon'ble President of the Learned District Forum alone should not have entertained the execution application to enforce the final order. He wants to rely upon provisions of section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 along with ruling in the matter of Shree Abhijeet Amrutrao Bedake and others v/s. Shri Dwarkanath Dagduram Karwa and others decided on 15/12/2009 in Revision Petition no.140/2009 decided by this Commission, in order to argue that an individual member of the Learned District Forum is not given power of Judicial Magistrate First Class, but the Ld. District Forum as composite body as composed under section 10 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is constituted as a Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, Ld. District Forum possesses the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class and not an individual member.
2We respectfully beg to defer with the above observations recorded by His Lordship Justice S.B.Mhase in the aforesaid ruling as obiter dicta. In our view, reading the provisions of law as it is, section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the punishment for failure or omission to comply with the final order and the failure to comply or omission to comply with the final order requires an enquiry by the Consumer Fora before conviction can be recorded for the offence punishable under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 27(1) operates notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Consumer Fora is necessarily considered as "deemed Magistrate" so as to enable Consumer Fora to deal with deliberate disobedience or failure to comply with the final order and as "deemed Magistrate". Power to try the offence summarily is also bestowed upon Consumer Fora concerned. Therefore, at the most, when enquiry or trial as contemplated under section 27 is concerned, it may be by summary procedure as understood under Chapter XX & XXI in the Cr.P.C. in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
In other words, Consumer Fora needs to ensure that the opponent who has proceeded against for alleged offence punishable under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, needs to be heard and Consumer Fora concerned need to record its finding as to whether there is deliberate non- compliance or failure to comply with the final order, to proceed further provision is enabling one and not requiring Consumer Fora to comply with all the technicalities of law in the Cr.P.C. Therefore, Legislature in its wisdom inserted the non obstante clause to enable the Consumer Fora empowering it alike any Judicial Magistrate First Class so as to deal with offence of non obedience or deliberate non compliance or failure to comply with the final order made punishable under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Regarding question of limitation to file execution application, general 3 law of limitation needs to be considered in absence of any specific provision as to when execution application can be filed as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Learned Advocate for the revision petitioners contended in view of the Regulation 14 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, which relates to limitation period subject to provisions of 15, 19 & 24-A broad legal provision is made as contingency clause as follows:-
14(iv)- The period of limitation for filing any application, for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act, the rules of these regulations, shall be thirty days from the date of cause of action or the date of knowledge.
We cannot ignore section 24-A, which enables Consumer Forum to condone the delay in filing an application or petition, if valid and sufficient reasons to its satisfaction are given as also period of limitation provided by the general law of limitation. According to learned advocate for revision petitioners, there was no application for condonation of delay and without that Hon'ble President admitted the execution application and issued summons to the revision petitioners. Impugned order reads as under:-
"Execution admitted. Issue summons against OP 1 to 13".
The arguments that Hon'ble President of the Learned District Forum alone cannot deal with the execution application is too far fetched though Learned District Forum consists of President and Members available as non judicial members to assist the Learned President. It cannot be treated as a rule of law to disable the Hon'ble President from entertaining the application and admitting the same while presiding over singly.
The Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Prem Chandra Varshney v/s. Muralilal Sharma and others decided on 12th September 2007, reported in IV (2007) CPJ 229 NC in para 5 held as under:-
"5. To be only noted that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation prescribed for filing 4 execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court is 12 years. Plain reading of said Regulation 14(1) (iv) would show that it would not apply to execution proceedings. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide for any limitation period for filing execution application. Though, said Article is not applicable to Consumer Fora still clue can be taken therefrom that period of limitation for filing execution application before Consumer Fora cannot be 30 days from the date of passing of order sought to be executed. Thus, the execution application(s) filed on 21.11.2005 were not barred by time."
However, since point of limitation is involved as argued as an objection taken, we set aside the impugned order with a direction to the District Forum concerned to consider as to whether execution applicant can file such application with or without condonation of delay application. In the event it is considered necessary to require execution applicant to move an application for condonation of delay, necessary order be passed accordingly. Learned District Forum is at liberty to entertain the execution application after compliance of our direction for reasons stated above. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties shall appear before the Learned District Forum on 30/11/2017 at 10.30 a.m. Pronounced on 2nd November, 2017.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [A.K.ZADE] MEMBER Ms 5