State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Anand Associates,Builder And ... vs Prassanna S/O.Shankarrao ... on 26 April, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Date of filing : 22.10.2008 Date of Order: 26.04.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1121 OF 2008 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 389 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD. 1. M/s. Anand Associates Builder and Developers partnership Firm situated at Plot No.A-7/A, Near Lupin Company, Chikalthana, MIDC, Aurangabad. 2. Prakash s/o. Sanchalal Bafna R/o. As above. 3. Parasmal s/o. Deepchand Aanchaliya R/o. Bhandari Metal, Jalna Road, In front of Govt. Doodh Dairy, Aurangabad. 4. Arun s/o. Bherulal Mugdiya R/o. Dashmeshnagar, Jyotinagar, Aurangabad. 5. Kanhiyalal s/o. Motilal Rujwal R/o. As above. Appellants //VERSUS// Prassanna s/o.Shankarrao Chavan R/o. Flat No.4, Anand Building, Adinath Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad. Respondent Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: None for appellant.
Adv. Shri. Sunil Thite, for the respondent.
::
ORAL ORDER ::
Per Shri S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the original opponent No.1 to 5 against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2007. By this order Forum directed the appellant to comply the Commissioners Report within 45 days. Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost.
2. The appeal is filed along with the application for the condonation of the delay.
3. Notice was issued. The learned counsel Shri. Sunil Thite, appeared for the respondent. Today on the date of admission hearing none appeared for the appellants. It appears that the appellants are absent since last four dates i.e. 28.01.09, 05.05.09, 26.10.09 & 23.03.10. None appeared on behalf of appellants since 28.01.09. We heard learned counsel Shri. Thite, for the respondent. He submitted that the delay caused for filing the appeal is abnormal. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellants to condone the delay.
4. We perused the papers. The delay condonation application mentions that, the appellants received the certified copy on 20.10.2008. It is contended that, the office bearer of the appellant had been to the Consumer Forum, Aurangabad on 16.10.2008 to search the case Arun Vs. Anand Associates. On that day it was informed by the concerned clerk that, other cases against the appellants have been decided by the Forum. It is contended that, this is the date of knowledge of the date about the judgment. It is also contended that, the appellants were not aware about the judgment nor they received the copy of the judgment. It is contended that they were not served with the notices.
5. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. On perusal of papers it reveals that, the judgment is passed in the case on 31.01.2007, whereas the appeal is preferred on 22.10.2008, i.e. more than one year 9 months. It also reveals from the judgment that, the notices were issued to the present appellants and they were asked to remain present before the Forum on 31.12.2005 but, the present appellants refused to accept the notices. The judgment also mentions that the notices were published in the newspaper on 25.10.2007 but, the appellants did not appear. It also reveals that, the Commissioner was appointed who is said to have visited the property. Thus, the contention of the appellants that they are not served with the notices can not be accepted. It appears that, they had refused to accept the notices. Not only that the notices were published in the newspaper and thus, the contention of the appellant that, they have no knowledge about the judgment, till their office bearer had been to the Forum in search of some other cases can not be accepted. The delay caused is abnormal delay. It also be mentioned that the appellant did not mention the specific days for which the delay is caused. The explanation tried to be given by the appellants can not be said to be just and proper.
We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellants thus, we are not inclined to condone the delay. We pass following order.
* O R D E R *
1. The application for the condonation of the delay is dismissed.
2. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
(Mrs.Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar