FA.No.47/2009 against IA.No.441/2008 in PP.No.93/2007 in CD.No.217/2006 District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar. 

Between:

Punnam Chandraiah,

S/o.Rangaiah, Aged 55 years,

Occ: Proprietor, Famous Electronics Drycleaners

and Darning Saree Rolling Centre,

Old Bazar, Karimnagar.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

Varala Mahesh,

S/o.Jagannatham, Aged 55 years,

Occ: Govt. Employee in BSNL,

H.No.5-5-24, Kapuwada, Karimnagar.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant       : Mr.M.A.Saleem.

Counsel for the Respondent   :  Admn.stage.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT.

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.         Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar dt.30.12.2008 in IA.No.441/2008, wherein the District Forum recalled the warrant in view of the fact that the very appellant had undertaken to clear the balance and deposited Rs.1,500/-, on that the court recalled warrant with a direction to pay the balance amount by 23.01.2009.

3.         The opposite party preferred this appeal contending that there was no deficiency in service on his part.  The direction of the District Forum to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards the cost of two sarees and one blouse besides costs of Rs.500/- is incorrect. 

4.         Evidently a complaint was filed against the appellant herein alleging that when the complainant had entrusted two sarees worth Rs.8,000/- to him as is running a laundry, he could not return the same.  The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards cost of two sarees and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.500/-. 

5.         The District Forum on contest allowed the complaint directing the appellant herein to pay Rs.6,000/- together with costs of Rs.500/-. 

6.         When the complainant has filed execution petition, the very appellant had paid altogether an amount of Rs.3,000/- on different occasions, and sought further time for payment of the balance amount.  In fact, an NBW issued against the appellant herein was recalled, when he deposited the amount, with a direction to pay the balance amount by 23.01.2009. 

7.         We do not see any error either in appreciation of fact or law in this regard.  The order in C.D. has become final.  The appellant did not prefer any appeal against the said orders.  Only after making some payments, he came up with this appeal contending that there was no deficiency in service on his part.  We believe that it is too late a day to prefer an appeal against the order which has become final. Therefore, we see no ground, whatsoever, to entertain the appeal.  Considering the request, we feel that it is a fit case where a further time of four weeks could be granted to enable him to make the balance payment, and on failure to comply, the District Forum is directed to pass such an order as it deems fit.

8.         The appeal is dismissed with the above said observations.  No costs.

PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

                                                        Dt:23.01.2009.