AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad ('the State Commission') in Revision Petition no. 47 of 2019, wherein the State Commission has restored on the file of the District Forum the application of the respondent moved for recovery of the amount deposited by the respondent and subsequently paid to the complainant by the District Forum in the wake of dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission. The State Commission has also asked the District Forum to give directions to the petitioner to deposit the amount within certain period and to pass order as per requirement of the case in accordance with law. The District Forum then issued notice to the original complainant and started the proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 vide its order dated 22.01.2020. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.02.2020 issued N.B.W against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the N.B. Warrant, but has filed the revision challenging the order dated 03.09.2019 of the State Commission. Once the order of the State Commission has been implemented and the District Forum has issued process in the execution case, it seems that the petitioner has not approached this Commission in time. In fact, there is a delay of 81 days in filing the present revision petition. It has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner did not receive any free copy of the order and as the order of the State Commission dated 03.09.2019 was an ex-parte order, the petitioner did not have any information about this order until the summons were received from the District Forum. It is seen from the order dated 22.01.2020 that the petitioner was present before the District Forum after receiving the notice from the District Forum. Thus, the version of the petitioner may be believed and we condone the delay in filing the present revision petition. However, it is seen that the State Commission vide it's order dated 08.09.2015 in Appeal No. 314 of 2014 filed by the opposite party against the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the District Forum in complaint case No. 361 of 2013 allowed the appeal of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had challenged the order of the State Commission by filing a revision petition No.3097 of 2015 before this Commission and this Commission vide its order dated 8th March 2016 passed the following order:-
"Since the vehicle in question was in the name of the son of the complainant, the impugned orders are set aside and the complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint. We make it clear that the son of the complainant, in whose name the vehicle was taken, will be at liberty to file a fresh complaint in his name in accordance with law.
In case a fresh complaint is filed by the son of the complainant, he shall also be entitled to seek extension of time in terms of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that his father was bonafidely prosecuting the complaint before the District Forum. As and when filed, such an application will be decided on its own merits.
The revision petition stands disposed of".
From the above order of this Commission, it is clear that the orders of fora below were set aside and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the complaint and liberty was granted that the vehicle owner may file the complaint afresh. It is thus clear that the complaint filed by the petitioner herein has lost its existence after the order dated 8th March 2016 passed by this Commission. Once the complaint is no more, the order passed by the District Forum becomes non-existent and thus there would be no need for the respondent opposite party to deposit any amount in compliance of the order of the District Forum and if the amount has been deposited, the respondent deserves it's refund. The petitioner herein is legally bound to return the amount deposited by the respondent and released to the complainant. Thus, we do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this commission. Accordingly, Revision Petition No. 550 of 2020 is dismissed.
The impugned order of the State Commission has already been implemented by the District Forum and process has been issued by the District Forum. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2020 of the District Forum issuing N.B.W against the petitioner herein, the petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal before the State Commission under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and liberty is granted for the same.