आदेश :- (दि.05/02/2011) (द्वारा - श्री.एम्.डी.देशमुख, अध्‍यक्ष) (1) आजरोजी सकाळच्‍या सत्रात उभय पक्षकारांना पुकारले असता उभय पक्षकार गैरहजर आहेत. तक्रारदारांनी ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा, 1986 कलम 27 अन्‍वये प्रस्‍तुतचा अंमलबजावणी अर्ज दाखल केलेला आहे. परंतु, तक्रारदारांनी त्‍यांच्‍या अर्जामध्‍ये स्‍पष्‍टपणे तशी विनंती केलेली नाही. सबब प्रस्‍तुतचा अंमलबजावणी अर्ज काढून टाकणेत यावा या निष्‍कर्षाप्रत हे मंच येते. न्‍यायाचे दृष्‍टीकोनातून तक्रारदारांनी त्‍यांच्‍या इच्‍छेनुसार ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा, 1986 कलम 25 अथवा 27 खाली अर्ज दाखल करावा. सदर विवेचनास खालील पूर्वाधाराचा हे मंच आधार घेत आहे :- Order dtd. 07.12.2009 passed by Hon.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in First Appeal No.1000/2009@M.A.121/2009 - 1. Chimanlal Keshavlal Shah and ors. vs. 1.Shashikant Balwantrao Shinde and ors. What is required to be noted that if the complainants/respondents desire to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 27 he should have prayed for imposing the punishment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less thank two thousand rupees but whcih may extend toten thousand rupees or with both as prayed under Section 27 (1) of said Act. However, in the prayer clause, we do not find such prayer. The Proceeding under Section 27 is a criminal proceeding while the proceeding under Section 25 (3) is not a ciminal proceeding but it is recovery proceeding of an amount stated in the order of District Forum. These two remedies provided by the statue for the execution of the order passed by District Forum are disctinct and separate. These remedies have different implications provided under the law. Even the powers of District Forum in vies of different jurisdiction vested in the District Forum is different. Therefore, District Forum or the complainant cannot club these proecedures and proceed or execute the orders passed by Distrcit Forum. What we find that the complainant has made an composite application under Section 25 & 27. Clubbing the remedies together resulted into misconceived execution application. Order dtd. 26.04.2010 passed by Hon.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Revision Petition No.59 of 2010 - Shri Dattatray Shankarrao Desai and others vs. Shri Mangesh Damodar Belvankar and others. Considering the prayer clause, there is no prayer in respect of entertaining or taking the proceeding under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If it is so, the impugned order also cannot be faulted with on that ground. It may be observed that if the complainants/decree holders wanted to take execution under Section 27 wherein a trial is expected, they can always file a separate application. (3) वरील विवेचन व पूर्वाधाराचा विचार करता हे मंच खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करीत आहे. आदेश 1. प्रस्‍तुतचे अंमलबजावणी अर्ज काढून टाकणेत येतात. 2. सदरचा आदेश ओपन कोर्टामध्‍ये अधिघोषित करणेत आला.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.V.N.Shinde] MEMBER[HONABLE MR. Mr.M.D.Deshmukh] PRESIDENT | | 
