| First Appeal No. A/03/685 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/06/2001 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/01/126 of District Solapur) |
| | | | 1. TANAJI PRALHAD BABAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA - SANGOLA, SOLAPUR |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. SMT. SADASHIV BHOSALE | | CHOPADI, TALUKA - SANGOLA, SOLAPUR | | 2. ASHARANI SHRIMANT BHOSALE | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 3. RAJKUMAR SHRIMANT BHOSALE | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 4. AAGATRAO BHANUDAS BABAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 5. ANANDA GANU BABAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 6. SAMBHAJI ANANDA BABAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 7. LAXMAN ATMARAM BABAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 8. JAGANNATH MAHADEV BABAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 9. PANDURANG JAGANNATH ALDHAR | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 10. SAHAKAR FRUIT SUPPLIER | | CHOPADI, TALUKA, SANGOLA, DIST SOLAPUR | | SOLAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal has been filed by Opponent No.2 against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur, in Consumer Complaint No.126/2001 decided on 29.06.2001. By allowing the said complaint the District Forum, Solapur directed Opponents, Sahakar Fruit Supplier and Tanaji P. Babar to give amount received by sale of fruits to the Complainants within one month and also directed to pay compensation of `500/-to each Complainant within one month. Aggrieved by this order Tanaji P. Bbar has filed this appeal. In filing appeal there is delay of more than 2½ two years. The appeal has been filed on 03.04.2003 whereas the District Forum had decided the consumer Complaint No.126/2001 on 29.06.2001. So, roughly the delay is more than 2½ years. He said that he could not remain present in the District Forum because he was suffering from cold and fever and thereafter, the complaint was decided ex-parte. He could not get knowledge of ex-parte decision passed against him but he came to know about the said ex-parte order only when Police came with bailable warrant to his house and therefore, he filed this appeal and in filing the appeal there is a delay and he has sought condonation of delay by filing Misc.Application No.729/2003 supported by affidavit. But in the condonation of delay application he has not mentioned for how many days he was required to get treatment from the doctor. He has appended one medical certificate which shows that Tanaji Babar was under treatment of Dr.Prakash Metkari for three days only. So, since delay is more than 2½ years, the condonation of delay application is required to be rejected because this is not establishing sufficient cause within provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Misc.Application No.729/2003 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected. (ii) Consequently Appeal No.685/20003 does not survive for consideration. (iii) Inform the parties accordingly. Pronounced on 12th October, 2011. | |
