Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, mandates that Consumer Commissions must ensure effective enforcement of their orders; therefore, in cases of deliberate and willful disobedience, nominal fines are insufficient, and the Commission is duty-bound to impose appropriate imprisonment and fine to serve as a deterrent.

PER MRS.KALYANI KAPSE, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Original Complainant namely Shri Praveenkumar S/o Shivkumar Jiwane, Nagpur against the Order and Judgement dtd 03/03/2015 in Execution Application No. EA/10/69arising out of CC/26/2010 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur (Hereinafter The Forum) under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (for the sake of brevity “The Act”)

2. The brief facts of the appeal under section 27 Amentioned herein below. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature i.e. the present Appellant as execution applicant and present Respondents as Opposite Parties for the better appreciation.)

3. In a nutshell it is a case of the applicant that theappellant/original complainant had filed the Complaint (UTP) No. 26/2010 between Praveenkumar S. Jiwane Vs. Smt. Tarabai S. Meshram & 5 others under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur

4. Notices were served. It is submitted that, all respondents gave their appearance through counsel on 19/4/2010, but respondents failed to filed their reply in the said matter, despite giving several dates by the learned Add. Forum, Nagpur. Hence the said matter proceeded ex-parte on 13/3/2010 against all the opponents.

5. That, after considering the facts of the complaint, affidavit as well as documents filed by the complainant, the learned forum passed the order on 10/06/2010 and thereby partly allowed the complaint, the Respondents are directed to pay amount to the complainant in respect of the said plot as per present market rate of the Sub-registrar office ready recknor within one month.Respondents further directed to pay Rs. 5000/- towards the mental and physical harassment and Rs. 1000/-towards the cost of the complaint.Total Rs. 6000/- be given to the complainant.

6. The appellant/original complainant having no option filed the EA No. 69/2010 between Shri. Praveenkumar S. Jiwane Vs. Smt. Tarabai S. Meshram & 5 others under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the additional consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur. The contention raised in the said EA that the respondents intentionally and malafidely not complied the order dt. 10/06/2010 passed by the Forum, Nagpur and also made the continuous as well as serious disobedience of the said order.

7. That, after hearing both parties the Forum finally decided the said EA and passed the impugned order on 03/03/2015 and thereby imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- only. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant filed the present appeal on the following grounds.

8. Learned Forum decided the said EA after considering Evidence Affidavit by the Complainant, Statement of the accused u/s 313 and written notes of the arguments filed by the complainant and passed the impugned order on 03/03/2015 and thereby imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- only. Hence on this count alone the order passed by the learned Forum is liable to be quashed and set side

9. The second ground raised is that the Learned Forum failed to consider the specific order passed by the learned additional forum in original complaint about payment of amount as per relying the 2010 ready recknor of the sub-registrar, Nagpur. Hence, the conclusion of the learned Forum in the order passed under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 re