(Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) None is present for the appellant as well as respondent. This matter is pending since 2003. The appellant also has not bothered to take circulation for getting first order passed. As per the Commission’s policy, this appeal has been placed before us for final hearing on 04/07/2011. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet Board of the Commission. On 04/07/2011, on finding that appellant as well as the respondent were absent, we directed office to issue notice informing next date of hearing i.e.10/08/2011 to both the parties. Accordingly, on 27/07/2011, office issued notices to the parties. On 10/08/2011, service report was not there, but the postal receipts of having sent notice by speed post are on record. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 28/09/2011 for awaiting service report. On 28/09/2011 i.e. today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Even today, service report is not there. Since, it is sent by speed post, we presume both the parties have received the notice sent by this office. Hence, we are inclined to dispose off this matter on merit. The District Forum, Raigad had passed an order dated 24/04/1997 in Consumer Complaint No. 179/94 directing the opponent to execute sale deed of the block No.203 in favour of the complainants within one month from the date of the order. This order was not complied with by the opponent within stipulated period. Hence, the original complainants filed Darkhast No.02/1997 against the opponent on 12/06/1997. After perusing the documents on record, the District Forum Raigad dismissed the Darkhast. Aggrieved thereby, the original decree holders/complainants filed this appeal. The grievance of the appellants is that though sale deed is not executed in their favour as per award, the forum below simply dismissed darkhast proceedings filed by the original complainants under Sec.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are of the view that when proceedings u/s. 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed, the forum below ought to have decided the proceedings and should have ensured that the order passed in the complaint is complied with and the decree holder got the relief of getting the sale deed executed from the opponent. The district forum dismissed Darkhast holding that it was the decree holder who committed default by not taking steps. This order is bad in law and cannot be sustained in law. Once the proceeding u/s.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is initiated the process had to be issued and then judgement debtor has to be summoned and then full trial under summary proceeding should be held. No such step was followed by the District Forum and by a stroke of pen, they simply passed dismissal order in Darkhast on 13/12/2002. The said order is bad in law and by allowing this appeal, we are inclined to restore the Darkhast on the file of District Forum, Raigad. In the circumstances, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is allowed.
(2) Dismissal order dated 13/12/2002 passed in Darkhast No.02/1997 by the District Forum, Raigad is quashed and set aside.
(3) The said Darkhast No.02/1997 is restored back to file.
(4) District Forum, Raigad shall initiate proceeding u/s.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgement debtor by sending notice to both the parties and shall dispose off the same as per the directions of the Commisson already given extensively.
(5) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 28th September, 2011.
