State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Shivraj Babasaheb Salunkhe vs Mr.Vilasrao Bapuso Patil on 2 May, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE FIRST APPEAL NO.261/2008 Filed on : 16/02/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.369/2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KOLHAPUR Date of order: 2/5/08 @ MISC.APPLICATION NOS.397 & 398/2008 Shri Shivraj Babasaheb Salunkhe R/o.A ward, Kolhapur, Plot no.16 Malini, Opp.Hotel Pandurang Sane Guruji Vasahat, Kolhapur .Appellant/org.complainant V/s. Mr.Vilasrao Bapuso Patil R/o.Plot no.19 R.S.No.1001/1B Powar Colony, Radhanagari Road Kolhapur .Respondent/org.O.P. Corum: Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member
Present: Mr.Nagesh Chavan-Advocate h/f.Mr.A.M.Kulkarni-
Advocate for the appellants ORAL ORDER Per Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.Nagesh Chavan-Advocate h/f.Mr.A.M.Kulkarni-Advocate for the appellant.
This appeal filed by original complainant is directed against dismissal order dated 17/10/07 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur. There is inordinate delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. Therefore application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is explained in para nos.6 & 7 of the application. It is stated that appellant was under wrong impression that period of limitation provided under Act is 90 days. Therefore delay is caused. There is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Inordinate delay is not satisfactorily explained. Ignorance of law cannot be excused. Very appellant has filed consumer complaint and when there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal, appellant takes a ground that he does not know the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to limitation. We are therefore not inclined to condone the delay. We therefore reject Misc.application no.397/08.
By way of abundant precaution, we examined the correctness of the order. Present appellant approached the District Consumer Forum not with clean hands. Appellant and father who own a land of gut no.1059 sold number of plots to more than 25 persons. Appellant and other co-owners have also sold number of plots to Ramchandra Kushappa Salvi & Sadashiv Govind Tangude in the year 1988. They have also sold free hold plots admeasuring 2000 sq.ft. to Shankar Govind Patil & Krishna Ananda Patil. The respondent disclosed this information in the written statement about transactions made by appellant and co-owner without the knowledge of the respondent. Forum below has observed in para 10 of the judgement that the appellant and other co-owners tried to extract more money from the respondents and has filed consumer complaint.
Forum below has taken into consideration the complicated issues involved in the complaint and directed the appellant to approach Civil Court. Order passed by the District Consumer Forum does not at all suffer from any illegality. No interference is called for. In the result, we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Prayer for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
3. Misc. application for stay stands disposed of.
4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (B.B.Vagyani) Member President Ms.