Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shri. Chandrakant Laxmanrao Dantkale & ... vs Smt. Shabani Prashant Shah & Ors. on 23 February, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 UNDER  CERTIFICATE  OF  POSTING
  







 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

First Appeal
      No. A/05/1900 a/w MA/05/2400
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated 30/07/2005 in Case No. 207/2005 of District Solapur)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1. Shri. Chandrakant Laxmanrao Dantkale
        
       
        
         
         

R/o. 130A, Bhavani Peth, Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

 Maharashtra
        
       
        
         
         

2. Sou. Sumangala Ramesh Satte
        
       
        
         
         

R/o. 14G, Budhwar Peth, Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

 Maharashtra
        
       
      
       

 
      
       
       

...........Appellant(s)
      
     
      
       
       

Versus
      
     
      
       
       
         
         
         

1. Smt. Shabani Prashant Shah
        
       
        
         
         

21, Nagane Deshmukh Apartment, Budhwar Peth, Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

 Maharashtra
        
       
        
         
         

2. Ku. Payal Prashant Shah
        
       
        
         
         

21, Nagane Deshmukh Apartment, Budhwar Peth, Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

 Maharashtra
        
       
        
         
         

3. Ku. Yash Prashant Shah (Minor) Thorugh Resp. No.
        1
        
       
        
         
         

21, Nagane Deshmukh Apartment, Budhwar Peth, Solapur
        
       
        
         
         

 Maharashtra
        
       
      
       

 
      
       
       

...........Respondent(s)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 BEFORE:
    
     
     

Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER   PRESENT:

None present.
   
O R D E R     Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
    (1)               
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.07.2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No.207/2005, Smt.Shabari Prashant Shah & Ors. V/s. Durgamata Finance & Investment Corp. Ltd. & ors., passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (the Forum in short).
  (2)               
The deficiency in service against the Original Opponents is alleged for not returning the deposit, thereby Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who were original Complainants filed consumer complaint against Original Opponent Nos.1 to 5 including the Appellants
- Shri Chandrakant Laxmanrao Dantkale and Sou.Sumangala Ramesh Satte, who were the partners of the Durgamata Finance and Investment Corp. Ltd., the original Opponent No.1. The Forum upholding the contentions of the original Complainants, directed to refund deposit amount holding the Opponents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Feeling aggrieved thereby two partners, viz. Opponents i.e. Chandrakant Laxmanrao Dantkale and Sou.Sumangala Ramesh Satte, have filed this appeal.
  (3)               
On the date of hearing both the parties remained absent in spite of notice published on the notice board, on internet and in spite of the fact that by way of abundant precaution a notice was sent by post on 03.11.2011. The appeal is pending for admission since the year 2005. While filing the appeal there is delay and hence, application for condonation of delay is made. In view of such circumstances, we prefer to consider the application for condonation of delay on merit.
  (4)               
In the instant case the impugned order was passed on 30.07.2005 and as per the outward endorsement made on the copy by which it was forwarded to the Appellant, it was sent on the very same day i.e. on 30th July, 2005. Therefore, in normal course, it ought to have been received by the Applicant/Appellant.
Applicant/Appellant in spite of receipt of the copy of the order on 04.08.2005, however, thereafter pleading the ground of heavy rains and the Advocate was busy and also referring to one case under M.P.I.D. Act which was pending against the Applicant/Appellant, it is submitted that delay of 35 days occurred. The heavy rains occurred earlier on 25/26th July 2005 and, thus; those conditions were over by the time copy of the order might have received. Reference is also made to the busy schedule of the Advocate but the name of the Advocate is not mentioned. The statement is quite vague and therefore, on that ground it cannot be held that there is sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Third ground mentioned is about pending case against the applicant/appellant in M.P.I.D. but no particulars are given. Hence, we are not convinced with the grounds mentioned for condonation of delay and holding accordingly, we pass following order:
 
O R D E R   Misc.Application No.2400/2005 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
 
In the result, the appeal is not entertained and Misc.Application stands disposed of.
 
Pronounced on 23rd February, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER   [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep