Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Authorized Representative of the Appellant-Complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondents.

          The Appeal has been filed apropos the State Commission’s Order dated 31.08.2016, which is as below:

Advocate Mr. Uday Wavikar is present for the executant/complainant. Advocate Mr. Anand Patwardhan is present for the respondent. Since according to Ld. Advocate for the executant applicant there is no calculation of the amount in final prayer of this application he wants to calculate the amount due from the opponent u/sec. 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to issue recovery certificate to the Collector. We find that prayer is not

appropriately worded so as to issue recovery certificate. Hence, permission is granted to withdraw this execution application with a liberty to file fresh execution application. Order accordingly. 

                                                [ 3 ]

In effect the State Commission has accepted the submissions made before it by the Advocate for the Executant-Complainant to allow him to re-articulate and re-submit his execution application.

The Executant-Complainant has now himself filed Appeal against this Order of the State Commission which was made as per his own submissions before the State Commission. Per se the Order of the State Commission appears reasonable and appropriate i.e. to permit re-articulation and re-submission. It is also informed that the advocate concerned is still the advocate of the Executant-Complainant before the State Commission.

In the given facts and position, it is not proper on the part of the Executant-Complainant-Appellant to have filed this Appeal before this Commission.

The Appeal being misconceived and devoid of merit and having clear elements of attempts to misuse the statutory processes provided for for better protection of the interests of consumers is dismissed with stern advice of caution to the Appellant.