Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by org. opponent-Muslim Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. against the judgement and award dated 30/10/2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint No.189/2003. After obtaining order of notice before admission and stay, appellant/Credit Society has never bothered to serve notice on the respondent and it was lying unattended in this Commission since 2004. This appeal was taken out from sine-die list and placed before this Bench on 03/08/2011 for disposal. On that date, we directed the office to issue notices to both the parties returnable on 26/09/2011 i.e. today. Accordingly, as per endorsement dated 20/09/2011 office has sent notices to both the parties, but both parties are absent. Hence, we decide to dispose of this appeal on merits.
2. We are finding that in filing this appeal, there is delay of 226 days. As such Misc. Appl. No.1589/2004 has been filed by the appellant-Credit Society. In the condonation of delay application grounds mentioned are financial difficulties, non-recovery of dues from the Members, pendency of 200-225 Civil Suits in various Courts. These are the grounds mentioned in the condonation of delay application. What is pertinent to note is the fact that condonation of delay application is not supported by any affidavit. The appellant-Credit Society had taken care to ask for stay and in support of stay application, they had filed affidavit. But in support of condonation of delay application, they had not filed affidavit. Therefore, delay of 226 is not proved by adducing evidence of any just and sufficient cause under the provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That apart, the grounds mentioned are general one. There is no specific ground for filing this appeal so belatedly. In the circumstances, application filed to seek condonation of delay of 226 days will have to be rejected outrightly. In the circumstances, the appeal will not survive for consideration.
3. Moreover, by way of judicial interest, we have gone through the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and we are finding that this was a simple case of respondent demanding back her deposit kept with the appellant-Credit Society. Deposit was not given back and therefore, she filed consumer complaint. There was obviously deficiency in service on the part of appellant-Credit Society in not giving refund of deposit amount. That is the hard earned moneys of the respondent which were kept in the appellant-Credit Society and there was operation of her father, she approached the appellant-Credit Society for refund of moneys and when same were not given she filed consumer complaint. On the whole, we are finding that even on merits appellant-Credit Society has no case. It was guilty of deficiency in service. In the circumstances, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Misc. Appl. No.1589/2004 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 26th September 2011.
