Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/09/1425

THREE STARS CONSTRUCTION CO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAYYED F ALAM - Opp.Party(s)

U B WAVIKAR / MURLIDHAR S. NAIK / RASHMI MANNE

24 Nov 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/1425
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/01/2009 in Case No. CC/377/08 of District )
1. THREE STARS CONSTRUCTION CO75/76, Seema Complex, Tulinj Road, Nallasopara (East), Tal. Vasai, District Thane, Maharashtra, Through its Partner Mr. Rafiq J. Teli ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. SAYYED F ALAMR. No. 1, Raj Kishore Dubey Chawl, S. N. Dube Road, Dahisar (E) ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :U B WAVIKAR / MURLIDHAR S. NAIK / RASHMI MANNE, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr.Pravartak Pathak,Advocate, for Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Respondent 1

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

 

          There is alleged delay of 90 days in filing appeal and therefore, this application for condonation of delay is filed.  This application is vehemently opposed by the respondent.

          It could be seen from the averments made in the application which is supported by an affidavit dated 23/11/2009 which is some sort of affidavit offering clarification only and nothing has been stated about receipt of the first copy of the impugned order dated 17/01/2009.  As per the endorsement of the certified copy filed before us, shows that first copy was sent by the Forum below on 23/03/2009 to the appellant.

          It is further revealed from the statement made in the application that he became made aware of the impugned order dated 17/01/2009 in the second week of July 2009, when perhaps execution proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were taken against the applicant/appellant.  Thereafter, immediately, he prefer to remain absent before the Forum below.  According to his own statement, he managed to remain present before the Forum below on 21/08/2009 only.  Thereafter, on his own he has filed Revision Application before the Forum below against the order.  Those matters were prosecuted further.  Then, it appears that he obtained certified copy of the impugned order on 19/11/2009 by making an application for certified copy and this appeal was preferred along with application for condonation of delay. Thus, it could be seen that though he was aware of the impugned order, even accepting his statement as it is, by 21/08/2009, he had not taken any steps immediately to file appeal.  No steps were at all taken till the certified copy was obtained on 19/11/2009.  Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to condone this inordinate delay.  We make it clear further that the applicant/appellant also failed to explain as to when actually he had received certified copy supplied by the Forum below which was issued on 23/03/2009. Therefore, we find that the applicant/appellant miserably failed to explain the delay in filing this appeal.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Misc. Application No.1742/2009 for condonation delay stands rejected and in turn, Appeal No.1425/2009 is not entertained.

2.       No order as to costs.

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

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 24 November 2010

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