1

Criappln473.19- J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2019

Vishwa Travels and Courier,

Through Sunil Bapurao Deshpande

R/o; Udyog Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar,

Latur.

...Applicant

VERSUS

Amazing Software Agencies,

Through Sameer Ganpati Padwal,

Age; 36 years, Occ; Business,

R/o; F-41, MIDC Latur

...Respondent.

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. (Dr.) R.R. Deshpande h/f Mrs. Priyanka

R. Deshpande

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. S.S. Halkude

...

CORAM : SURENDRA P.TAVADE , J.

Date of Reservation : 23^th September, 2021.

Date of Pronouncement : 01^st October, 2021

JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

learned counsel for both the parties, heard finally at the admission

stage.

2

Criappln473.19- J

2.

The applicant is challenging the order passed by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Latur (for short

“District Forum”) in Second Darkhast No. 88 of 2016 dated

13.12.2018.

3.

It is contended that the respondent had filed a

Consumer Complaint No. 92 of 2008 against the applicant before the

District Forum. The said complaint was allowed on 29.12.2006. The

applicant was directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent with

interest @ 9% p.a. and he also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- and

2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs

respectively. It is contended that both the parties have preferred

First Appeal Nos. 1111 of 2008 and 1224 of 2008 respectively,

against the order passed by the District Forum before the State

Commission. The said appeals came to be dismissed on 25.04.2011

and 05.09.2013 respectively by the State Commission.

4.

It is contended that the respondent had filed Regular

Darkhast No. 140 of 2008 on 15.12.2008. The said darkhast was

dismissed by the District Forum on 15.12.2015. The respondent has

filed second Darkhast bearing No. 88 of 2016 at District Forum under

Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the “Act”). In

pursuance of second Darkhast, the District Forum had issued

3

Criappln473.19- J

process against the applicant for the offence punishable under

Section 27-A of the Act.

5.

The applicant appeared before the District Forum and his

plea was recorded. The respondent filed affidavit and the proceeding

was kept for cross-examination of the respondent. The applicant

submitted an application before the District Forum and raised

various legal objections pertaining to the maintainability of the

Regular Darkhast No. 88 of 2016, being barred by the limitation, as

well as on the ground that earlier Regular Dstkhast No. 140 of 2008

has been already dismissed in default on 15.12.2015. The applicant

raised contention that the earlier Darkhast was dismissed in default.

Therefore, the applicant was acquitted in view of the provisions of

Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”),

therefore, the second Darkhast is not maintainable. It is contended

that the District Forum though had appreciated point raised by the

applicant but shown its inability vide paragraphs Nos. 18, 19, 20 and

21 of the impugned order, to allow the application filed by the

applicant, on the ground that the District Forum has no powers to

review its own order. Hence the applicant has filed the present

application to quash the judgment and orders passed by the District

Forum in R.D. No. 88 of 2016. In addition to the above facts the

applicant has also prayed that he has paid the entire amount of

4

Criappln473.19- J

compensation to the respondent, therefore, nothing is now payable to

the respondent. Hence it is prayed that R.D. No. 88 of 2016 filed by

the respondent before the District Forum be dismissed.

6.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

the first D