STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI APPEAL EXECUTION NO.AE/11/2026 (Arising out of the order dated 09/12/2025 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission Mumbai Suburban in Execution Application no.31 of 2022)

Mr.Shekhar Dadarkar Proprietor of M/s.S.D.Construction Having address at :

Shop no.1, Geetanjali CHS Plot no.11, Shastri Nagar Goregaon West, ..Appellant/Org.OP Mumbai 400 104 Versus

1.Mr.Jayesh B. Dalal 2.Mrs.Bhakti J. Dalal Having address at :

B-301, Sukhvilla CHS Ltd.

…Respondents/org.complainants Near Vivek College, Vivek College Road Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon West Mumbai 400 102 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Advocate Sajira Jondhale i/b. Advocate U.B.Wavikar PRESENT:

for Appellant.

Adv Sagar A.Shah for the respondents.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.20/04/2026)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09/12/2025 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban in Execution Application no.31 of 2022 in original consumer complaint no. 260 of 2015, the original opponent has preferred this appeal. It is contended by the appellant that he received the summons of the Execution Application no.31 of 2022. Accordingly, he appeared before the Ld.District Consumer Commission and complied with the bail procedure. It was contended that the appellant did not receive entire set of execution application and annexures. Therefore, he requested for copy of the execution application and annexures. Accordingly, it was provided to him and the execution application was listed for recording plea. It was contended that on 09/12/2025, the Ld.District Consumer Commission recorded the plea but the appellant being elderly person could not understand it properly and he unintentionally admitted the guilt. It is contended that the complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 but the execution application was filed u/sec.72 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. There is flaw in the execution application. The contents of the offence were not properly explained to him and he inadvertently admitted the guilt.

2. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has failed to appreciate the same and adjourned the matter for passing final order. It is contended that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has not discharged its duties properly and wrongly recorded the plea. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and fresh plea of the appellant be recorded.

3. The notice of this appeal was issued to the respondents. The respondents appeared and filed their reply. It is contended that the appellant appeared before the Ld.District Consumer Commission in pursuance of the summons. He tried to avoid recording of the plea but ultimately, he appeared on 09/12/2025. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has explained the contents of the plea. It was correctly understood by the appellant and he pleaded guilty. There is no flaw in the plea. The present appeal is false and frivolous to delay the trial before the Ld.District Consumer Commission. It was contended that the appellant cannot take disadvantage of his age. His plea was recorded properly. It is also contended that the execution application is proper and correct. Merely because the execution application is filed under section 72 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, that does not make it illegal. The reliance placed by the appellant on section 251 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is misconceived. The appeal has no merit. Hence it is prayed that it be dismissed with costs.

4. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. Perused the impugned order. It appears that on 09/12/2025, the appellant appeared through his advocate. It appears that on that date his plea was recorded. It appears that he accepted the plea. In fact, the Ld.District Consumer Commission ought to have put all the contents of the plea before the appellant and should have obtained his answers whether he understoo