First Appeal No. A/10/922 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/05/2010 in Case No. 78/07 of District Satara) and First Appeal No. A/10/923 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/05/2010 in Case No. 79/07 of District Satara). Case: 1. Swati Shrinivas Wathare, 2. Shrinivas Purushottam Wathare Vs Chanakya Construction, Through Its Proprietor, Vikram Vijay Gosavi, Maharashtra. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. A/10/922 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/05/2010 in Case No. 78/07 of District Satara) and First Appeal No. A/10/923 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/05/2010 in Case No. 79/07 of District Satara)
JudgesP. N. Kashalkar (Member) & S. P. Lale (Member)
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 15, 17(a), 17(b), 27
Judgement DateMarch 04, 2011
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


P. N. Kashalkar (Member)

  1. These two appeals have been filed against the order passed on Application at Exhibit-69 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara, dated 11.05.2009 whereby the District Forum was pleased to dismiss the said application at Exhibit-69 filed by appellant and also disposed of the Darkhast Proceeding no.78/2007 and directed that amount of 7,10,000/- deposited by the judgement debtor be given back to him after taking bank guarantee from him.

  2. In the like manner Application at Exhibit-71 in Darkhast Proceeding No.79/2009 was also dismissed by the District Forum, Satara by its order dated 11.05.2009 on finding that the judgement debtor had deposited 7,10,000/- covering both Darkhast Proceedings (Nos.78/2007 & 79/2007), filed by the Applicant/Appellant. As such husband and wife both who were decree holders in Execution Application Nos.78/2007 and 79/2007 have filed these two appeals challenging the said order.

  3. Facts lie in narrow compass. Smt.Swati Shreeniwas Wathare had filed Consumer Complaint No.211/2006 against Vikram Vijay Gosavi, the proprietor of M/s.Chanakya Constructions. The said complaint after contest was allowed by the District Forum. The appeal against said complaint was dismissed by this Commission and thereafter, judgement debtor had approached the Hon'ble National Commission. The Hon'ble National Commission was also pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition. Hence, Smt.Swati Shreeniwas Wathare, the Complainant in Execution Application No.78/2007 moved Execution application under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Oral order was passed that within 30 days Opponent No.1 - Vikram Vijay Wathare, Proprietor of Chanakya Construction should pay to the Complainant a sum of 6,85,000/- and if necessary he should sell flat no.3 booked by Complainant. Likewise he was permitted to raise loan on the said flat and he was permitted to mortgage the said flat. With this operative order complaint of Smt.Swati Wathare was allowed on 30.04.2007. This order was put in execution by filing application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. At one point of time by allowing application at Exhibit-40 bailable warrant was issued against the judgement debtor. However, it appears that the judgement debtor deposited total amount of 7,10,000/- in two Execution Proceedings, one filed by Smt.Swati Wathare and other filed by her husband Shri Shreeniwas Wathare and on finding that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT