State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kishor Limbraj Shinde vs Amar Baburao Kamble on 1 February, 2012
1 F.A.No.: 77-09
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 03.02.2009
Date of Order: 01.02.2012
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 77 OF 2009
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 181 OF 2008
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: OSMANABAD.
1. Kishor Limbraj Shinde
Managing Director,
M/s. Saptagiri Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Osmanabad,
R/o. A/p.Chindholi Post. Pangri,
Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Amar Baburao Kamble
R/o. Ganesh Nagar,
Osmanabad.
2. Vidhula Sukhdeo Sutar,
M/s. Saptagiri Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Osmanabad,Tq. & dist. Osmanabad.
3. Virendra Panditrao Patil
Director of M/s. Saptagiri Marketing
Pvt. Ltd; Osmanabad,
R/o. S. T. Colony, Barshi Naka, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ...Respondents
... Respondent
Coram : Mr. D. N. Admane, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member Present: Adv. Shri. S. A. Wakure, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. Ganesh Kore, for respondent No.1 & 3. 2 F.A.No.: 77-09
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mr. D. N. Admane, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. Adv. Shri. S. A. Wakure appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. Ganesh Kore, for respondent No.1 & 3.
2. We have heard the counsel on the point of delay. Delay shown is as 89 days. The applicant submitted that, the appellants being the director of the company were busy in marketing and due to failure of the communication with their Advocate; the applicants could not prefer appeal within time. Applicant also submitted that, due to financial loss caused in their business the appellants were unable to arrange the required amount to file appeal. Further that, they were trying to settle the matter amicably with mutual consent, and they were under impression that respondent no.1 would not prefer further proceedings. It is further submitted that the appellants were arrested and therefore delay has been caused. However, the applicant has not stated about the dates and period he was arrested and how many days he was behind bars. The cause given by the appellant entirely vague. We found that, financial crises and communication & the loss in business etc. are not satisfactorily explained. Delay occurred is 89 days in filing this appeal. We are not inclined to condone the delay.
3. Adv. Kore for respondent No.1 submitted that, appellant No.1/org.comlpainant Amar Baburao Kamble has filed the complaint for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was deposited with the appellant finance company and that complaint is allowed on 06.10.2008. It is submitted that, the 3 F.A.No.: 77-09 amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the appellant be paid to him. Adv. S. A. Wakure in his reply submitted that, he has no objection to give the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No.1 Amar Baburao Kamble/org. complainant.
Hence, the
-:: ORDER ::-
1. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
2. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
3. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited as statutory deposit be paid to respondent No.1 Amar Baburao Kamble/org. complainant.
(K. B. Gawali) (D. N. Admane)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar