In the instant case execution application was filed bearing No.169/2008 against the Revisionist for non-compliance of the order dated 11/08/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.155/2008, Smt.Chhaya Ramchandra Kumbhar V/s. Shree Laxmi Sahakari Bank Ltd. Sangamnagar (Khed), Satara, through its Chgairman/Manager – Mahendra Bhagwatrao Desai & Ors. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara.  Consequently to the observations made by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’ in short), in an order passed while disposing Revision Petition No.593/2010, Dr.Nagesh Sarjerao Ingale V/s. Sou Chhaya Ramchandra Kumbhar & Ors. to the effect that said Revision Petition stood dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to raise issue in respect of personal liability of (then Petitioner) Dr.Nagesh Sarjerao Ingale to pay award amount or the balance of the awarded amount and it was further opined by the National Commission that the Forum shall consider objections of the Petitioner in respect to his personal liability to pay the amount of award and shall dispose of the same in accordance with the law.  An application vide Exhibit-9 in the execution proceeding No.169/2008 was filed on 17/03/2010, with a request that the execution application for the entire amount against the revisionist should be dismissed and Rs.4,00,000/- deposited along with interest towards satisfaction of the awarded amount (deposited in execution application) be refunded to him.  Said application stood dismissed by impugned order dated 12/08/2010 and feeling aggrieved thereby this revision application is preferred.

We heard Mr.S.B. Khurjekar, Advocate for the Revisionist.

Considering the fact that once cognizance of offence u/sec 27  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in short) is taken, the only course open to Forum below which is supposed to act as the Magistrate, to proceed with the trial and to  explain the particulars of the offence, record the plea of accused and then if not plead guilty, conduct the trial as per the procedure laid down for summary trial vis-a-vis summons trial in view of Provisions of Section 262(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.  Said trial may result either in acquittal or conviction.  During the course of said trial, as opined by the National Commission, supra, the defence can be raised and which ought to have been considered by the Forum below at a trial stage in order to come to  conclusion as to whether revisionist has committed the offence and his guilt is established or not.  From this point of view, though we donot subscribe to the reasoning of Forum below, we find no merit in Revision application and hence, pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

  (i)          Revision Petition stands dismissed in limine.

    (ii)               Steno copy of the order be made available to the Revisionist today itself.