STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.AEA/3/2025 Mr.Avinash Rampal Saroj R/at-01, Ground Floor Plot no.340, Thane Belapur Road Gangotri Apartments Shiravane, Nerul Navi Mumbai 400 706 ...... Appellant Versus

1. Mr.Ramchandra Mishra R/at-Sai Adarsh CHS Ltd.

Plot No.164, Flat no.203, 2^nd floor Sector no.23, Jui Nagar, Juipada Post Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400 706

2.Rampal Mangu Saroj Office at -Plot no.332B, Sector-01 Shiravane, Nerul Navi Mumbai 400 706

3.Mr.Jung Singh Nanade Office at Plot no.76, Sector 17 Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706 ………Respondents

4.Mr.Milind M.Kamble Office at Plot no.76, Sector 17 Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706

5.Hon.Collector, Thane Office Address-Thane Collector Office In front of Thane District Civil Court Court Naka, Thane (W) 400601

6. Hon.Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate Thane Office address-Station Road,Thane (W)

Taluka & District Thane 400 601

7.Hon.Circle Office, Belapur Revenue Officer (Talathi)

Shared Office Shiravane Office address-13/1, 15^th floor B wing, Arahant Aura, Opp.Turbhe Rly.Station Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai 400 703 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Sharmila Ghanwat a/w. Advocate Nanabhau B.

Vharkate for appellant.

ORAL ORDER (Dt.18/07/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. This matter is not on today’s Board. On application of the appellant, the matter is taken on today’s board. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30/05/2019 passed by the Ld.Additional District Consumer Commission, Thane in Execution Application No.35/2016 u/sec.25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Heard learned advocate for appellant. It is contended that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has issued Recovery Certificate to recover the compensation awarded to the original complainant namely Mr.Ramchandra Mishra. In pursuance of the Recovery Certificate, the District Collector has issued the notice to the present appellant. The appellant had filed reply but the reply was not considered and ultimately, the final notice for attachment of the property was served upon the appellant.

3. It is contended by the appellant that he is the owner of the property. He was not concerned with the consumer complaint but his property is likely to be attached wrongly.

4. Perused the impugned order. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has simply issued the Recovery Certificate with a direction to the District Collector to recover the amount and hand it over to the original complainant. The impugned order does not reflect that the property of the present appellant was ordered to be attached. The present appellant has remedy before the Ld.District Consumer Commission itself in view of the order passed by this Commission in the matter of Amir Ali Tharani v/s. Rajesh Sukhtankar & another in First Appeal No.A/09/1190 and Suo Motu Revision Petition No.RP/10/35 dated 27/09/2010. Therefore, appellant is at liberty to move the Ld.District Consumer Commission and seek necessary relief. Hence, this appeal is disposed of.

5. No order as to costs.

6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

[Justice S.P. Tavade]

President [Vijay C. Premchandani]

Member MS