BHAVANI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS Vs. RAJENDRA V.PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None present for the parties. This appeal is filed challenging order passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane in Execution application no.25/2007 filed by the respondent. Said order has been passed on 05/10/2007. In Roznama order is as follows:-

(2.) Complainant present with Advocate Smt.Poonam. O.P. Prakash Shetty has been served with notice under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per report of P.S. Mira Road. O.Ps absent today. We therefore held that O.P. has committed breach of order of this Forum. Issue arrest warrant against O.P. Prakash Shetty u/sec.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 through P.S. Miraroad. Hamdast granted. Adjourned to 14/11/2007 at 2.00 p.m.

(3.) Thus being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order appeal has been filed. What we find that initially notice of the execution application has been given to the appellant being application under section 27 of the said Act. In view of the said summons appellant should have remained present before the District Consumer Forum. Since the appellant is absent, in order to secure presence of the appellant warrant has been issued. However what we find that the observations of the District Consumer Forum that we therefore hold that O.P. has committed breach of order of this forum is wrong and erroneous. Whenever the summons is served and the opponent or accused in execution application under section 27 fails to attend before the District Consumer Forum, District Consumer Forum in order to secure presence can issue initially bailable warrant and/or non bailable warrant. Directly warrant cannot be issued under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 27 contemplates a procedure for imposing punishment as provided under section 27(1) and, therefore, in a proceeding under section 27, District Consumer Forum while acting as Judicial Magistrate First Class has to impose a punishment as provided in said sub section (2) of section 27 having found that the person is absent after service of summons. Directly an arrest warrant cannot be issued. There shall be either bailable warrant or non bailable warrant for production of the opponent/ accused before the District Consumer Forum. Order does not speak about it. Therefore observation that the O.P. appellant has committed breach of order of this Forum is vague enough namely whether this makes a reference to the disobedience of the summons and/or it is a reference to the failure to comply with the orders which was passed in consumer complaint is not known from the said sentence. And therefore, said sentence in the order is hereby deleted and quashed. We treat that the arrest warrant which has been issued is for the production of the appellant and, therefore, after the appellant is produced before the District Consumer Forum, District Consumer Forum shall follow the procedure namely procedure as provided in sub-section (3) of section 27 namely summary procedure. For that purpose also we find that the summary procedure has been provided in the criminal matters in chapter XX & XXI of the Cr.P.C. and the said procedure shall follow as far as possible to the application under section 27 as it is expected. From the observation above made, we find that no interference is required in the order dated 5/10/2007. Hence the order:- Order: