Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/1311

PRATAPPRAO BABURAO PATIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHANKARRAO DATTAJI PATIL - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH PATIL

28 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/1311
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/07/2010 in Case No. 1869/09 of District Sangli)
 
1. PRATAPPRAO BABURAO PATIL
R/O "SIDHESHWAR SANKUL" PADLI ROAD GANAPATI CHOWK SHIRALA
SANGLI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHANKARRAO DATTAJI PATIL
R/AT KHABALE GALLI SHIRALA TALUKA SHIRALA
SANGLI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:RAKESH PATIL, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Mr. S.V. Mali, Advocate for Respondent.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per Mr. S.R.Khanzode,  Hon’ble Juicial Member :

       

        There is alleged delay of 62 days in filing appeal and therefore, this delay condonation application is filed.  The impugned order was passed on 23.7.2010.  It is stated on behalf of the appellant that he learnt about the said order which was passed exparte against him on 22.10.2010 after police visited him to serve him a notice and therefore, he obtained certified copy of the said order which he received on 18.11.2010 and then this appeal is preferred on 24.12.2010 alongwith delay condonation application.

          Heard both sides. In the application, it is not at all stated as to when the certified copy of the impugned order  sent free of costs by the Forum was received by the applicant/appellant.  We enquired about this from the Ld. Counsel for the appellant but he avoided to give reply to the said question.  Further the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 7 and 8 of the application to justify his request for condonation of delay.  In para 7 it is mentioned about appellant visiting the Forum to obtain certified copy of the  impugned order.  In para 8, certain family events relating to murder of his brother-in-law and his engagement with the said event after lodging the complaint to the police and  as to how he had to look after family of his  brother-in-law were mentioned.  Such events are prior to the period of delay and thereby appellant only tried to explain his absence during the hearing of the consumer complaint as a result of which the complaint came to be decided exparte.   Further even after receipt of certified copy on 18.11.2011, he ought to have filed appeal before 18.12.2010, but it was not done accordingly. Delay occurred even for this period is not explained.  Under the circumstances, what we find that delay actually occurred is not at all explained.  Under the circumstances, we hold accordingly an pass the following order :

 

O R D E R

 

          Delay condonation application stands rejected.  In the result, appeal is not entertained.  Both parties to bear their own costs.

 

Pronounced date 28th September 2011  .

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
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.