Maharashtra

StateCommission

RP/10/8

GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

KU KAMAL SHREEDHAR SAWANT & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

VINAY S MASUKAR

28 Oct 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No. RP/10/8
(Arisen out of Order Dated 18/12/2009 in Case No. 146/2009 of District Ratnagiri)
1. GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTDRATNAGIRI SANCHAR BHAVAN KHARGHAT ROAD OPP CIVIL COURT RATNAGIRI Maharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. KU KAMAL SHREEDHAR SAWANT & ORSKARJUVE MANDAVANE WADI TAL SANGMESHWAR RATNAGIRI Maharastra2. Supdt. Engineer, M.S.E.DM.S.E.D. Co. Mahavitaran Nachane Rd., Ratnagiri ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

 

          This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed on Exhibit-10 in the consumer complaint No.146/2009 which was the application for taking preliminary hearing as to whether the complainant was a consumer and whether the Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  With a reasoned order, Forum below came to the finding that the complainant is a consumer and it has jurisdiction to try the said consumer complaint and dismissed the application.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, this Revision Petition is preferred.

          Today, we have entertained Appeal No.721/2010 from the final order passed in the consumer complaint No.146/2009 decided on 30/06/2010.  Therefore, it appears that after disposal of preliminary issue by the impugned order, which is subject matter of Revision, the consumer complaint was proceeded further and dispute was settled by final order dated 30/06/2010.  Thus, the Revision Petition is infructuous.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Revision Petition is not entertained and stands disposed of accordingly.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       As per direction of this Commission dated 09/06/2010 cost of `5,000/- is imposed, the Registry to take necessary steps to recover the same, if the same is not paid earlier.  This direction be brought to the notice of the Registrar (Legal).

4.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 28 October 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]Member