ABHIJIT AMRRUTRAO BEDAKE Vs. DWARKANATH DAGDURAM KARWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) President (Oral) -An execution petition was filed before District Forum on 16.9.2009. On that day the respondents moved an application stating that on 13.8.2009 bailable warrant was issued as against the revision petitioners, since the revision petitioners have failed to obey the orders passed in consumer complaint No. 341/2008. It is further stated in the said application that bailable warrant was served on some of parties and rest of the parties have also knowledge of the said warrant and therefore, respondents prayed that since the amount as directed in a complaint has not been paid non -bailable warrant be issued. On the said application, the President of District Forum has passed an order directing revision petitioners to file their say immediately. It further appears that the Advocate for the revision petitioners/org. opposite party Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 filed their say and requested that non -bailable warrant may not be issued and time for three to four months may be granted. However, it appears that execution petition was adjourned to 13.10.2009. On 13.10.2009 there was holiday due to Assembly Elections and, therefore, execution application appeared before District Forum on 14.10.2009. On 14.10.2009 on behalf of the revision petitioners an application was moved by Advocate stating that Adv. Mr. Satale, who is having information of the case is not available and therefore, execution application be adjourned. On the said application order was passed directing the respondents to file their reply and accordingly, respondents filed reply wherein respondents prayed rejection of an application and issuance of non -bailable warrant. Thereafter, the President of District Forum, Satara rejected the application filed by the revision petitioners on 14.10.2009. The President of District Forum also allowed the application filed by the respondents on 16.9.2009 and issued non -bailable warrant as against the revision petitioners. This order of 14.10.2009 of issuance of non -bailable warrant as against the revision petitioners is challenged by this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel Mr.Talkute, who appears for the revision petitioners submitted that procedure followed by District Forum is absolutely bad and illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He submitted that under Section 27 bailable warrant and/or a non -bailable warrant for the recovery of the amount cannot be issued. He submitted that the procedure as provided in Sub -section (3) of Section 27 should have been followed by the District Forum. He also submitted that the President of District Forum is exercising the powers arbitrarily. He submitted that individually the President cannot pass an order. The President has to pass an order taking the members of the District Forum along with him because according to him District Forum is composed under Section 10 and consists of three Members. He also submitted that the quorum and the procedure which is required to be followed while deciding the complaint under Sections 13 and 14 is not applicable when the District Forum is dealing with an application under Section 27 exercising the powers of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent vehemently tried to submit that the order passed by District Forum is just and proper. He submitted that fixed deposit amounts of the respondents are lying with the revision petitioners and in spite of directions to make payment of said fixed deposit amounts, revision petitioners have failed to pay the said amounts and, therefore, he submitted that issuance of bailable warrant and/or non -bailable warrant for the purpose of recovery of the said amounts is permissible under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He submitted that President is having powers to issue such orders for execution and thus tried to support the order passed by the District Forum which are made before State Commission.