Back
RP/22/80
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.RP/22/80
(Arisen out of interim order dated 24/06/2022 passed in Execution Application No.4 of
2022 by the District Commission Sangli)
1.Shri Namdevrao Ganpati Mohite,
R/o Haripur Road, Ganesh Kripa,
Sangli, District Sangli.
2. Ganpatrao Shamrao Pachunde,
R/o Patrakar Nagar, Kolhapur Road,
Sangli.
3. Ashokrao Dashrathrao Mohite,
R/o A/p Haripur Taj Miraj,
Ward No.4, Haripur.
4. Sambhaji Tukaram Patil,
R/o Kisan Chowk, Sangliwadi.
5. Rajaram Maruti Suryawanshi
R/o Haripur, Ward No.2, Taj Miraj.
6. Salim Abbas Phanlakar,
Phanlakar Building, Kolhapur Road,
Sangli.
7. Rajkumar Sadormal Chugh,
R/o Londhe Colony, NeAr New English School,
Miraj.
8. Vijay Gangaram Patil,
R/o Mujawar Plot, Near S.T. Stand,
Sangli.
9. Annaso Shundappa Kore,
R/o Ganesh Colony, Near ST Stand,
Sangli.
10. Shakuntala Appaso Patil,
R/o Near S.T. Workers Bhuvan,
Bhosaler Plots, Sangli.
....... Petitioner (s)
RP/22/80
Versus
1. Vilas Parshuram Rajmane,
2. Sou Shakuntala Vilas Rajmane
R/o A/p Shirshi, Taluka Shirala,
District Sangli.
3. Dinanath Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Limited,
Sangli Kolhapur Road, Sangli.
……Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade - President
S.T. Barne – Judicial Member
For the petitioner(s) : Advocate Mr.Madhav Tamhankar
For the Respondent(s) : None present.
ORDER
(22nd August, 2022)
Per Hon’ble Justice S.P. Tavade – President:
(1)
The original opponents have preferred this Revision Petition against the
order passed 24/06/2022 in Execution Application No.04/2022, whereby
the District Commission has issued attachment warrant against the
petitioners.
(2)
The
Ld.Advocate
for
the
petitioners
submits
that
the
Respondents/original complainants had submitted an application for
attachment of moveable property of the petitioners. Said application was
objected by the petitioners on the ground that there is no provisions to
issue attachment warrant. It is contended that the District Commission
ought to have referred the application to the Collector for execution of the
impugned order along with Recovery Certificate. Instead of doing the
said act, the District Commission has already issued attachment warrant.
The said order be set aside.
RP/22/80
(3)
Heard Learned Advocate for the Petitioner. Perused the impugned order.
It appears that the Respondents/original complainants have filed
execution application for execution of the impugned order wherein the
petitioners did not deposit any amount. Hence, the respondents/original
complainants submitted an application for attachment of moveable
property which was allowed. Execution Application was filed u/sec 25 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it was incumbent upon the
District Commission to issue recovery certificate and should have
submitted the papers to the District Collector for realization of the
amount, but, instead of doing the said act, the District Commission has
issued attachment warrant, which is not expected u/sec 25 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of Section 25 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, the impugned order appears to be bad in law.
Therefore, it requires to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i)
Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii)
The impugned order dated 24/06/2022 passed in Execution Application
No.04/2022 by the District Commission for issuance of attachment
warrant is hereby set aside.
(iii)
Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(iv)
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
[Justice S.P. Tavade]
President
[S.T. Barne]
Judicial Member
emp
