STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. R/103/2017
(Against the order dated 14-07-2017 in Execution Case
No. 08/2015 of the District Consumer Forum, G. B. Nagar )
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
Plot No.1, Sector Knowledge Park-IV
Greater Noida City
Gautam Budh Nagar
...Revisionist
Vs.
Mahesh Mitra
Proprietor
M/s Mittra Master Maruti
E-86, Swami Dayanand Colony
Delhi-110007
...Opposite party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Revisionist : Mr. Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
Dated : 25-07-2017
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Mr. Rajesh Chadha, learned Counsel for the revisionist appeared.
Sri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite party appeared.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned order dated 14-07-2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar in Execution Case No. 08/2015 Mahesh Mitra V/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority whereby the District Consumer Forum has passed order to seize Account No. 98250100000129 of revisionist Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority opened in Bank of Baroda, Branch Gama-2, Greater Noida.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and against law.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that in above execution case District Consumer Forum has issued a summon to
:2:
Amit Mohan Persad, CEO of revisionist Greater Noida Authority directing him to appear on 06-07-2017 but on 06-07-2017 the said execution case was adjourned for 13-07-2017 and on 13-07-2017 the case was not taken by District Consumer Forum and kept undated. Thereafter on 14-07-2017 the District Consumer Forum has passed impugned order dated 14-07-2017 without affording any opportunity of hearing to revisionist.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has opposed revision and has contended that in above execution case the judgment debtor Sri Amit Mohan Persad, CEO did not turn out. As such, the District Consumer Forum has rightly issued warrant of attachment under Section 83 of Criminal Procedure Code.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
The facts mentioned above show that summon has been issued by the District Consumer Forum to Sri Amit Mohan Persad, CEO of Greater Noida Authority in above execution case No.08/2015. Thereafter warrant for seizing account of Greater Noida has been issued against judgment debtor without adopting process of bailable warrant or non bailable warrant to secure attendance of judgment debtor in above execution case for proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In view of above the warrant whereby the account of revisionist has been seized is against law and without jurisdiction. There appears no provision in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to empower District Consumer Forum to issue warrant of attachment for recovery of decretal amount in execution proceeding under Section25 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in pursuance of final order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
In view of discussion made above revision is finally disposed of and the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is quashed subject to condition that judgment debtor Chief Executive Officer of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority shall appear before District Consumer Forum in above execution case either in person or through Counsel on date fixed failing which the District Consumer Forum shall be at liberty to take
:3:
coercive steps for securing attendance of judgment debtor and to proceed further in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
