STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/22/168 (Arising out of order dated 08/02/2022 passed by the Addl.D.F. Mumbai Suburban in EA/14/65)

Mr.Dinesh M.Sharma Former Director M/s.Sharma Realty Pvt.Ltd.

502, Beverly Park, Yogi Hill .....Appellant/Org.OP no.1 Mulund (W)

Mumbai 400 080 Versus Mr.Ram Niwas Rai (since deceased through L.Rs)

1A.Mr.Abhishek Rai 1B.Mrs.Rashmi Rai

1C.Mr.Ravi Rai All above R/at E-602, Joy Homes, Near Dena Bank Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400 078

2.M/s.Sharma Realty

109, Bharat Industrial Estate ………Respondents L.B.S.Marg, Bhandup (W)

Mumbai 400 078

3,Mr.Vinod Sharma Director M/s.Sharma Realty Pvt.Ltd.

102, Beverly Park, Yogi Hill Mulund (W)

Mumbai 400 080 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Advocate Poonam Makhijani for appellant.

Respondent no.1 present in person.

PRESENT:

Advocate Aditya Kharkar i/b. Dr.U.P.Warunjikar for Respondent -Mr.Vinod Sharma

FINAL ORDER

(Dt.19/06/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. 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/14/65 in Consumer Complaint no.CC/05/470. It is contended in the appeal that in Execution Application No.EA/14/65, 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 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, the impugned 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 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 th