Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31/08/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.231/2006 (Bhagwansheth Shankarrao Shinde, Power of Attorney holder of Mr.Mohan Raut & five ors. V/s. M/s.A. Ismail & Co. & Anr.) by Addl. District Forum, Pune. Said consumer complaint stood dismissed by dismissing the application for condonation of delay. Feeling aggrieved thereby, complainants preferred this appeal.
2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, appellants and their Counsel both remained absent. We heard Mr.V.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. In the appeal compilation though copy of complaint is filed, copy of application for condonation of delay is not filed on record. However, from the submissions made and copy shown to us of the reply dated 24/05/2007 given by respondents (opponents in the consumer complaint) to delay condonation application refers to a fact of settlement talk between the Company and the complainants. Obviously, the appellants did not substantiate their such cause and did not substantiate any particulars which shows that the Company gave them promise and therefore, the delay occurred in filing the complaint along with delay condonation application.
4. Furthermore, from copy of Power of Attorney which is on simple paper dated 21/07/2006 produced on behalf of appellants’, shows that Mr.Bhagwansheth Shankarrao Shinde did not hold any Special Power of Attorney which is duly notarized and executed on the stamp paper. Therefore, consumer complaint filed by said Mr.Bhagwansheth Shankarrao Shinde along with delay condonation application, per se, could not be entertained.
5. Apart from that in view of provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, five independent cultivators who had a grievances against the respondents being a manufacturer of seed have certainly different causes of action and admittedly, they failed to comply the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. District Forum rightly observed so while considering the application for condonation of delay which goes to the root of the matter and as such, action itself being not proper and could not be entertained, the delay condonation application stood also rejected on that count. We find no fault in the impugned order.
6. Under the circumstances, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 12th March 2013.
