Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/552

VALDEVI TRADING CO PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI TRIMBAK SHRIPATRAO GHOTKE - Opp.Party(s)

V G SABNISH

16 Nov 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/552
(Arisen out of Order Dated 13/08/2009 in Case No. 76/09 of District Nashik)
1. VALDEVI TRADING CO PVT LTDSHOP NO 2 JANKI APT CHATGE NAGAR BH BITCO COLLEGE NASHIK ROAD ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. SHRI TRIMBAK SHRIPATRAO GHOTKE JAGDAMBA PRASAD SAIKHADA ROAD SANT SNYANESHWAR NAGAR NASHIK ROAD NASHIK2. SAU MIRABAI TRIMBAKRAO GHODKEJAGDAMBA PRASAD, SAIKHADA ROAD, SANT DNYANESHWAR NAGAR, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK3. -- ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :V G SABNISH , Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr.Rameshwar Gite, 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

Heard both the counsel.  This appeal is filed along with delay condonation application by the appellant against the order dated 13/08/2009 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nashik in C.C. No. 76/2002.     In the condonation of delay application it is mentioned that Mr. Subhash Raghunath Somwanshi is working as chairman of the appellant company.   There is delay of 9 months in filing this appeal.   According to the appellant that he was not aware about the complaint and the notice was sent on wrong address.  The appeal is filed within 30 days from 13/05/2010 after the knowledge of impugned order dated 13/08/2009.  Hence there is no intentional delay and delay was beyond the control of the appellant and if the delay is condoned the appellant shall be able to demonstrate his case on merit.   Upon hearing of the advocate we are not satisfied about the contentions made by the advocate.  The fact is that the Forum had issued notice to the O.P. on dated 09/03/2009 on the given address but the said notice was not claimed by the O.P. and was returned to the Forum as not claimed.    Hence, Forum had passed the ex-parte order against the O.P. and ultimately complaint was allowed.  In view of the above fact the contentions made by the appellant for condonation of delay is not just and sufficient.  Hence we passed the following order:-

                              ORDER

1.      Misc. Application No. 287/2010 stands rejected.

2.      Consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration.

3.      No order as to cost.

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

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 16 November 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member