Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/267

MAHALAXMI GAS AGENCY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI PANDURANG KRUSHNAJI CHOUGULE - Opp.Party(s)

UMESH MANGAVE

22 Mar 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/267
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/06/2010 in Case No. 54/2010 of District Kolhapur)
 
1. MAHALAXMI GAS AGENCY
THROUGH PROP MAHADEV WALAVI R/O 648/37 MANDLIK VASAHAT MANGALWAR PETH SUBHASH ROAD KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI PANDURANG KRUSHNAJI CHOUGULE
R/O 2807/1 INDRAYANI BUNGLOW BELBAG MANGALWAR PETH KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
THROUGH AUTORISED OFFICER 4 & 6 KARIMBHAI ROAD P B NO 688BLARD ESTATE MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
3. SHRI K N GOPINATH NAYAR
DEPUTI MANAGER SALES, BHARAT PETOLEUM CORPORATION LBPC C/O PATIL GAS AGENCY IN FRONT OF KEVIS PARK NAGALA PARK KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLHAPUR
C/O COLLECTOR OFFICE NAGALA PARK KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Adv. Umesh Mangave for the Applicant/Appellant
......for the Appellant
 
Adv. P. B. Jadhav for the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1
......for the Respondent
ORDER

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

 

          Heard Adv. Umesh Mangave on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant and Adv. P. B. Jadhav on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1 on the application for condonation of delay.

 

[2]     In filing an Appeal No.267 of 2011 there is a delay on the part of the Applicant/Appellant and to seek condonation of delay, the Applicant/Appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 2011.  In the application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, it has been fairly conceded that there is a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal.  However, only ground mentioned explaining the delay is that the Applicant/Appellant was out of station because of his family settlement and thereby he could not contact his advocate.  This does not make out any sense and in any case, it is not explained as to how there was a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal.  In the application for condonation of delay the Applicant/Appellant has not made it clear as to why he was required to go out of station for his family settlement and for how many days he was out of station.  In fact, family settlement could be achieved at his residential premises itself.  In any view of the matter delay of 165 days is not at all properly explained by giving cogent and sufficient causes within the meaning of proviso to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

 

          Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.267 of 2011 hereby stands rejected.  Consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration.

 

Parties to bear their respective costs.

 

Amount deposited by the Applicant/Appellant with the State Commission at the time of filing of appeal in accordance with the proviso to Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be directly paid to the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1 towards part-satisfaction of the order passed by the District Forum after the period for filing a revision before the National Commission is over.

 

Pronounced and dictated on 22nd March, 2012

 

 
 
[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.