Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/03/1675

SHRI. BABULAL K. GANDHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH CIRCLE OFFICER AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/03/1675
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/00/128 of District Satara)
 
1. SHRI. BABULAL K. GANDHI
VILLAGE VINCHURNI, TAL PHALTAN, DIST. SATARA.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH CIRCLE OFFICER AND ORS.
GIRVI, TAL PHALTAN, DIST. SATARA.
2. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Sub-Division,
Phaltan, Dist.Satara.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. D. N. Admane MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Appellant by Adv.Vijaya Mohite present.
......for the Appellant
 
ORDER

(Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)

  

(1)               There is delay of 793 days in filing the appeal.  This appeal is preferred by original complainant in whose favour compensation of `50,000/- was awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara by its order dated 17/08/2001 passed in Consumer Complaint No.128/2000 – Babulal K. Gandhi Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Vidyut Mandal & anr.  However, not satisfied with the same, this appeal is preferred.

 

(2)               The delay is tried to be explained on personal grounds stating that one Ms.Madhavi Gandhi was looking after the matter and she had approached her local advocate in the month of September 2001 to file the appeal.  However, the advocate failed to take necessary steps and failed to file an appeal.  Also applicant’s younger brother, Maganlal Gandhi was not keeping well.  In month of June 2002, the said Maganalal Gandhi was suffering from cancer and ultimately died on 04/04/2003. 

 

(3)               We heard the learned counsel for the appellant.  We are not satisfied with the reasons stated in the application.  It appears that the appellant did not follow the matter deligently.   Also, illness of his brother cannot be a ground.   Disclosure of the cancer of his brother in the month of June 2002 is not sufficient ground to condone the delay, since said event occurred much after lapse of the period of filing the appeal.

 

(4)               Coming to the merit of the case, appellant should also thank itself for securing an award in his favour of `50,000/- even though, he himself cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ since the alleged fire resulting the damage has nothing to do with the service line of his connection. The fire resulted from sparking at general transmission line.  

 

(5)               For reasons stated above, we find the delay is not at all satisfactorily explained.  Hence, application for delay condonation deserves to be dismissed.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

(1)     Delay condonation application is dismissed.  In the result appeal is not           entertained.

 

Pronounced on 21st July, 2011.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. D. N. Admane]
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.