State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Krishnarao Dhondiba Bhegade And ... vs Narayan Devidas Pandit on 8 December, 2011
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision
Petition No. RP/11/122
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 17/02/2011 in Case No. EA/18/2007 of District Pune)
1.KRISHNARAO DHONDIBA BHEGADE SHANIWAR PETH TALEGAON CHAKAN ROAD TALEGAON STATION TALUKA - MAVAL DISTRICT - PUNE. PINCODE - 410507
2. RAMDAS MAHADEO KAKADE JOSHIWADI INDRAYANI VIDYAMANDIR COLONY TALEGAON STATION TALUKA - MAVAL DISTRICT - PUNE. PINCODE - 410506 ...........Appellant(s) Versus NARAYAN DEVIDAS PANDIT R/AT:- 78, INDRAYANI VIDYAMANDIR COLONY TALEGAON STATION TALUKA - MAVAL DISTRICT - PUNE. PINCODE - 410506 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
A S PRATINIDHI , Advocate for the Petitioners ORDER Per -
Hon'ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member Heard Adv. Anirudha S. Pratinidhi on behalf of the Revisionists.
[2] This revision is directed against an order dated 26/7/2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune ('the Forum' in short) in Execution Proceeding No.18 of 2007, arising out of original Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2000, Mr. N. D. Pandit Vs. Indrayani Vidya Mandir. As per the impugned order, consequent to execution proceeding filed under Section-27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) after detailing the history of litigation, it was directed to issue process viz. summons against the original Opponent, namely - Indrayani Vidya Mandir, to be served through its Chairman/Secretary.
[3] Merely because summons is issued it is not a fit case to invoke revisional jurisdiction and as such, no revision would lie. This case is covered by an earlier decision of the State Commission in the matters of Amir Ali Tharani Vs. Rajesh Sukhtankar and Anr. ~ II-(2011)-CPJ-23.
[4] Looking to the history to which elaborate reference is made in the impugned order, it could be seen that the Chairman/Secretary of Indrayani Vidya Mandir represents the institution, namely - Indrayani Vidya Mandir, against whom original order in Consumer Complaint No.104 of 2000 was passed. Therefore, they can contest the execution proceeding after putting their respective appearances according to law. Thus, we find that revision is without any merit and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Revision is not admitted and stands rejected summarily.
No order as to costs Pronounced on 8th December, 2011 [Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER kvs