Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/03/397

HARSHAD RATILAL MEHTA, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS, - Opp.Party(s)

-

27 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/03/397
(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/10/2002 in Case No. CC/00/74 of District Pune)
 
1. HARSHAD RATILAL MEHTA,
N. MEHTA & CO., 373, SHUKRAWAR PETH, PUNE-411 002.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS,
403, GANESH PETH, LAXMI RD., PUNE.
2. MRS. LAXMI RAVINDRA CHUTLE,
-
3. DR. RAVINDRA CHUTKE,
403, GANESH PETH, LAXMI RD., PUNE-02
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:None present.
 
ORDER

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

 

 

(1)                This is an appeal filed in the year 2003.  Since it was unattended, on 29th July, 2011 this appeal was placed before us.  On that day on finding that both the parties were absent, we had directed office to issue notice to both the parties and matter was adjourned today.  On 21.09.2011 office has sent notice to both the parties but both of them are still absent. 

 

(2)                The Complaint No.74/2000 filed by the Appellant/original Complainant was was partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune by judgement dated 16.10.2002 and Opponent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.51,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and also directed to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the Complainant.  Aggrieved by the inadequate relief granted, the Complainant himself has filed this appeal. 

 

(3)                In filing this appeal there is delay of 105 days.  Complainant filed condonation of delay application without mentioning number of days delay in filing this appeal.  But, we have calculated the number of days delay and we are finding that Complainant received order from the District Forum on 20.10.2002 and he filed appeal on 04.02.2003.  In the process there has been delay of 105 days in filing this appeal.  For this enormous delay only ground mentioned by the Appellant in condonation of delay application is that complete file of the order was missing since he was renewing his shop.  This is hardly a ground for condoning the delay mentioned in the delay condonation application filed by the Appellant..  We are not convinced with the sufficient ground for condoning the delay in the condonation of delay application supported with affidavit and therefore, we are not inclined to allow the condonation of delay application.  Hence, we pass the following order:

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

 

         (i)              Misc.Application dated 30.01.2003 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.

 

       (ii)              Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.

 

     (iii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

 

 

Pronounced on 27th September, 2011.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
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.