IMPORTANT POINT
Execution Application has to be disposed of in a summary procedure.

ORDER

Vijay C. Premchandani, Member—The present appellant has filed this first appeal against the order dated 08/02/2022 passed by the Ld.Additional District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban at Bandra in Execution Application No.EA/14/64 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/05/468. It is contended in the appeal that in Execution Application No.EA/14/64, the impugned order was passed, thereby convicting the present appellant u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a period of two years and directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as A-22-155 fine. Being aggrieved with the said order/judgment, the present appellant approached to this Commission by filing the present appeal u/sec.27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant has contended that the aforesaid execution application was filed by the respondent/org.complainant for non compliance of the order passed in the consumer complaint and thereby the Ld.District Consumer Commission, has passed an order by committing serious error by not following the procedural aspect as laid down u/sec.262 of Cr.P.C. The present appellant has prayed that the impugned order passed in the Execution Application may be quashed and set aside.

2. The present appeal was admitted and the notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent No.1 was present in person. Heard argument in the present appeal. After perusing the appeal memo and the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, as per the law discussed and the reasoning given herein below, we are inclined to pass the following order:-

Law & Reasoning:-

3. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the Ld.District Consumer Commission, has failed to adopt the procedural aspect as contemplated u/sec.262 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended that no evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded neither opportunity is given to the accused to lead evidence in their defence and without following the due process of law, theimpugned order of conviction has been passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, in the Execution Application.

4. The respondent in person contended that the Ld.District Consumer Commission, has rightly passed an order as the present appellant has not complied the order in spite of knowing the fact. Therefore, the said impugned order is proper and does not require any interference. Therefore, prayed to reject the present appeal.

5. We perused the record. It is admitted fact that the accused was released on bail. Thereafter, plea was recorded, no evidence and statement of the accused A-22-155 u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. We have gone through the order passed by this Commission in the matter of Amir Ali Tharani v/s. Rajesh Sukhtankar reported in Law Finder Doc Id 585813. We reproduce Para No.39 of the said judgment herein below:-

39. In the result, following procedure is required to be followed in an application under section 27 i.e. whenever the application under section 27 is presented by the applicant, the Consumer Fora shall satisfy itself on examination or verification that there is failure or omission to obey the order of Consumer Fora by opponent and shall take a cognizance under section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure and shall issue summons process for the appearance of accused/opponent along with copy of application. After summons is served on the other side, namely, opponent/accused, he shall appear before the Consumer Fora alias Judicial Magistrate of the first class and shall submit an application for the purpose of getting a bail so as to secure the presence and attendance of the opponent/accused. If on the date of first appearance, opponent remains absent, the Consumer Fora may consider to pass an order for bailable warrant to secure the presence. If on the first date, opponent/accused appears either personally or through Advocate and if it is not possible to proceed for summary trial as provided under the Act, opponent/accused shall submit an application for bail and the said applica