Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/09/1442

DILIP RAJ DNYANESHWAR BHOKRE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS VIDYA SUBHASH SALUNKHE - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul S. Gandhi

12 Jan 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/09/1442
(Arisen out of Order Dated 01/10/2009 in Case No. CC/348/09 of District Pune)
 
1. DILIP RAJ DNYANESHWAR BHOKRE
351, Bhoiraj Society, Pune 411 009
Pune
Maharashtra.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MRS VIDYA SUBHASH SALUNKHE
S. No. 90, Mrunal Residency, Vishal Parisar, Kalas, Pune 411 015
Pune
Maharashtra.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
 
PRESENT:Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Husband of respondent present.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          There is delay of 30 days in filing appeal.  Applicant has filed condonation of delay application seeking condonation of delay.  In the condonation of delay application, he has given so many reasons that there was marriage of the relatives, that there is death of uncle and that for some days (7 days) he was advised by doctor to take bed rest.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that he has received certified copy of the order on 07/10/2009 and from that date within 30 days he was required to file appeal.  What he did for 30 days is not mentioned anywhere.  Some illness of his mother is put forth as excuse.  We need not go into that aspect of the matter because he has 30 days to file appeal in the present case.  We are concerned with the 30 days after limitation period was over.  We have gone through all the documents on record and we are finding that only 7 days illness has been sought to be explained but not 30 days and therefore, this is not a fit case where we should exercise our judicial discretion to condone the delay.  The appeal is hopelessly time-barred, which is not supported by sufficient cause to condone the delay.  In a half hazard manner, appellant has tried to give so many excuses for filing this appeal belatedly.  It must be borne in mind that after receipt of certified copy of the order, appellant is required to give all the necessary papers to his Advocate, to pay prescribed fee and rest of the work would be done by his own Advocate.  When this is the situation, 30 days sought to be explained is not properly explained since there was no sufficient cause.  Therefore, we are not inclined to allow the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Misc. Appl.No.1752/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2.       Consequently, Appeal No.1442/2009 does not survive for consideration.

3.       Amount deposited by the appellant in this Commission be handed over to the respondent towards part satisfaction of the award.

4.       No order as to costs.

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

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]
Member

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.