Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/565

SOU RAJASHRI RAMESH BHAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

DILIP PANDURANG BHOI & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP KOREGAVE

26 Jul 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/565
(Arisen out of Order Dated 12/04/2010 in Case No. 420/2006 of District Kolhapur)
1. SOU RAJASHRI RAMESH BHATKAI DINKARRAO BHAT MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADIT KOLHAPUR FLAT NO 52 SHRI BHAVANI HOUSING SOCIETY DEVKAR PANAD SHIVAJI NAGAR KOLHAPUR ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. DILIP PANDURANG BHOI & ORSDEVKAR PANAND SADESAI NAGAR KOLHAPUR ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :SANDEEP KOREGAVE , Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr.R.R. Waigankar, Advocate for the Respondent 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

On last date, appellant was directed to deposit Rs.75,000/- in this Commission and warrant was stayed till the returnable date and appellant was directed to be released on bail on her executing PR bond of Rs.40,000/- and surety of like amount.  At appears that appellant has not deposited Rs.75,000/- till today.  Thus, we make it clear that there is no stay to the execution of order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and appellant shall be re-arrested and sent to jail by the Forum below ignoring the Bond executed by the appellant since appellant has committed breach of this Commission’s order. 

This is an appeal filed by Chairman of Kai. Dinkarrao Bhat Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kolhaput against the judgement of conviction passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Recovery Application No.142/2007 arising out of award passed in consumer complaint No.420/2006.  Forum below had initially passed an award against O.P.Nos.1to15 in consumer complaint No.420/2006.  Against that award, appeal was filed in this Commission, it was dismissed.  Against the dismissal of appeal, appellants had knocked the doors of Hon’ble National Commission by filing Revision Petition, it was also dismissed.  So, the award became final and then by filing Recovery Application No.142/2007, decree holders sought execution of award, since payment was not made by the Patsanstha/appellant herein.  Forum below by the impugned judgement had passed order of sentence against the Chairman of the appellant/Credit Society asking her to suffer one year simple imprisonment.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed under Section 27-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

We heard Mr.Sandeep Koregave, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.R.R. Waigankar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1to4.

We have perused the impugned judgement of convicting the appellant and directing her to suffer imprisonment for one year.  We are finding that despite award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur, Patsanstha or its Chairman did not bother to pay the decreetal amount to the decree holders and therefore, execution proceeding was filed and in the execution proceeding ample opportunity was given to the appellant to pay the amount of award, but appellant/Patsanstha failed to deposit said amount as directed by the Forum below and therefore, by way of last resort, Forum below passed the impugned order in execution proceeding and directed the appellant/Chairman of the Patsanstha to suffer imprisonment for one year.  We asked Advocate for the appellant persistently as to where due procedure was followed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur before passing order of sentence against the appellant.  He answered in affirmative.  We find that the Forum below had followed the procedure laid down in sub-section 3 of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before passing final order under Section 27 sentencing appellant to suffer imprisonment of one year.  We also asked Learned Counsel for the appellant if the appellant is ready to deposit decreetal amount today in this Commission or in the Forum below, he expressed his inability to do so.  He was simply ready to deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- in this Commission.  The award has got to be complied with by the judgement debtor in its entirety and no piecemeal compliance of the order is permissible under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the circumstances, the order of sentencing the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment of one year is appearing to be just, proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission exercising appellate jurisdiction in this appeal.  In the result, we pass the following order :-

               -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed

2.       Parties are left to bear their own costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 26 July 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member