STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/18/970 (Arisen out of order dated 02/11/2018 in EA/40/2017 in Complaint No.158 of

2015 passed by the District Consumer Commission Sangli)

Kai.Sou.Maltitai Vasantrao Dada Patil Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kavathemahankal, District Sangli Through Manager Mr.Ibrahim Abubkhar Shaikh ....... Appellant/

R/of A/P Kavathe Mahankal org.OP Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli Versus Kanchan Sanjay Kanwade R/o.Karoli (T) Kavathe Mahankal Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli ………Respondent/org.complainant.

BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT:

Advocate Madhav Tamhankar for appellant Advocate Rajesh Jadhav for respondent FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.09/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Member Mr.Vijay C. Premchandani

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order passed in Execution Application no.EA/17/40 dated 02/11/2018 by the Ld.District Consumer Forum/Commission, Sangli.

The brief facts of the case-

2. The original complainant/respondent in the present appeal had filed consumer complaint against the appellant for deficiency in service for the fixed deposit amount. The said consumer complaint was decided on merits. Then the complainant filed execution application u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for execution of the original order passed in the complaint. The matter of execution application was tried by the Ld.District Consumer Forum/Commission, Sangli. There are various issued in the appeal which are raised by the appellant before the Ld.District Consumer Forum/Commission, Sangli, such as, application is not maintainable as the complainant has claimed recovery of the amount in the matter and the matter is filed u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has prayed for composite prayer and so also for willfull disobedience. The appellant is working as Manager of Patsanstha and the affairs of the Society was not in the hands of the appellant. These are the various issues involved in the matter. Despite of that Ld.District Consumer Forum/Commission, Sangli, passed an order in Darkhast No.40/2017 convicting the present appellant for 6 months simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded to the original complainant, failure to payment of the compensation, awarded 45 days more simple imprisonment to the present appellant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appellant has filed this appeal.

3. The appellant has prayed that the aforesaid order may be quashed and set aside. The appellant may be acquitted from the alleged offence u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. The present appeal was admitted and the notice was issued to the respondent.

The respondent appeared. Heard both the sides. After considering the ground herein below mentioned on law points, we are inclined to give the following reasons as under.

Law points involved-

5. a) The execution application filed by the respondent is to be considered u/sec.25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

b) Whether the Secretary or Manager of the Society can be convicted for disobedience of the order by the Society u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Law & Reasoning-

6. As decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lucknow Development Authority v/s. M.K.Gupta reported in SCC 94 page 251-252, in para 2 which reads as under :-

" We therefore come straight away to the legal issue involved in these appeals. But before doing so and examining the question of jurisdiction of the District Forum or State or National Commission to entertain a complaint under the Act, it appears appropriate to ascertain the purpose of the Act, the objective it seeks to achieve and the nature of social purpose it seeks to promote as it shall facilitate in comprehending the issue involved and assist in construing various provisions of the Act effectively. To begin with the preamble