Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Hotel Godavari Pvt.Ltd. Shirdi, vs Assistant Engineer,Msedcl, Rahata. on 15 March, 2011

                                 1                   F.A.No.:97/2011




                                Date of filing :28.02.2011
                                Date of order :15.03.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 97 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:489 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :AHMEDNAGAR.

Hotel Godavari Pvt.Ltd. Shirdi,
Through Abhay Purushottam Shelke,
Prop and Manager of Hotel Godavari Shridi,
Shirdi, Tq.Rahata, Dist.Ahmednagar.            ...APPELLANT
                                               (Org.Complainant)
VERSUS

1.   Assistant Engineer,
     MSEDCL, Rahata.

2.   Executive Engineer,
     MSEDCL, LIC Office Bldg,
     Vidyanagar, Sangamner.

3.   Superintending Engineer,
     MSEDCL, Circle Office,
     Station Road, Ahmednagar.                 ...RESPONDENTS
                                               (Org.Opponents)

     CORAM :     Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.A.B.Kadam for appellant, Adv.Smt.Smita Medhekar for respondents.

O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. The present appeal is filed by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 7.10.2010 in complaint case No. 489/2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar. Forum by its order dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that he is not consumer as supply is taken for commercial purpose.

2. Learned counsel Smt.Smita Medhekar appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri.Kadam for appellant and learned counsel Smt.Medhekar for respondent. Learned counsel for appellant mentioned that Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of commercial purpose.

3. Learned counsel Smt.Medhekar supported the judgment and order passed by the Forum.

4. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that, complainant had himself mentioned that cause of action arose for the first time on 27.04.2004 respondent issued supplementary additional faulty bill of Rs.49,769/-. Even it is apparent from complaint that complainant had challenged the bill dated 27.4.2004 amounting to Rs.49,769/-. When the bill was issued on 27.4.2004 it was necessary for appellant to approach the Forum within two years from the issuance of bill in question. Forum has rightly considered all these aspects and rightly held that complaint is not within limitation. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. We pass the following order.

                                O   R    D   E   R


     1. Appeal is dismissed summarily.
     2. No order as to cost.

3. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh Member Member Presiding Judicial Member.

Mane 3 F.A.No.:97/2011