Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/09/808

Kothoram Tulsiram Bondre - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinodkumar Jagannath Walde - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vijay Petkar

29 Sep 2011

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1 CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001

First Appeal No. A/09/808 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/05/2008 in Case No. CC/08/32 of District )   1. Kothoram Tulsiram Bondre R/o Near Gajanan Temple, Gramin Police Headquarter Road, Jagrutinagar, Patankar Sq. Nari, Nagpur. 2. Chandrakant Kothiram Bondre R/o Near Gajanan Temple, Gramin Police Headquarter Road, Jagrutinagar, Patankar Sq. Nari, Nagpur. Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Vinodkumar Jagannath Walde Plot No.3, Awalenagar, C/o Patil, Nagpur. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:     Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER   HON'BLE N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER

PRESENT: None ......for the Appellant   Adv.Mr S V Satpute ......for the Respondent

ORDER   Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member                 Both the appellants as well as their counsel are absent. Adv. Mr S V Satpute for the respondent is present.        The Record reflects that the appellants as well as their counsel are absent since 01.03.2011. Further on perusal of copy of the impugned judgement & order and the appeal memo, it manifests that the appeal is time barred. The copy of impugned judgement & order reflects that though the appellants / original o.ps were duly served with notice, remained absent. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum was constrained to pass the ex-parte judgement on 31.05.2008 whereas; the o.p.s filed the appeal on 05.12.2009. However, the record does not reflect that the appellants were not aware about passing of ex-parte impugned judgement & order. Though the appellant received the copy of impugned judgement & order on 17.11.2009 and filed this appeal on 05.12.2009, same cannot be considered to be within limitation. But there is no application for condonation of delay. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be summarily rejected. However, since the appellant as well as their counsel are absent; the appeal deserves to be dismissed for default.         Hence, the following order:-       ORDER       1.      Appeal is dismissed for default.       2.      No order as to cost.       3.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.                 Delivered on 29.09.2011.

[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER   [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER   [ HON'BLE N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER