Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/753

ASHOK MARTAND BINWADE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH PRALHAD TALWAR - Opp.Party(s)

B PATOLE

16 Nov 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/753
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/07/2010 in Case No. 1408/08 of District Sangli)
 
1. ASHOK MARTAND BINWADE
R/O WILLINGDON COLLAGE POST VISHRAMBAG
SANGLI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SURESH PRALHAD TALWAR
R/O 130RAILWAY GATE RAILWAY QUATERS VISHRAM BAG SANGLI
SANGLI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
 
PRESENT:B PATOLE , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 IN PERSON, Advocate for the Respondent 1
ORDER

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

Heard Adv. Patole.  Original O.P. has filed this appeal challenging the ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sangli on dated 20/07/2009.  Wherein The O.P. has been directed to refund Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of 15/08/2007 till the realization of entire amount.  Against this order appellant has filed an appeal alongwith delay condonation application.  There is a delay of 287 days in filing this appeal.  We have gone through the delay condonation application wherein the appellant mentioned  the delay is of  287 days in filing the appeal.  In para no. 7 of the said application he stated that he had not received the notice of D.C.R.F.  further he stated that the applicant came to know about the complaint when the notice of execution had received him on 06/04/2010.  Thereafter the applicant approach to the advocate and as per the advice of advocate applicant applied for certified copies of the judgement on 06/04/2010 and was received on 06/05/2010.  Hence, for this reasons the delay of 287 days occured for filing this appeal.  So we are finding that the reasons given for this abnormal delay is not just and sufficient.  Hence we passed the following order.

ORDER

1.      Misc. Application No. 405/2010 stands rejected.

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

3.      No order as to cost.

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

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