State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arvind Pundlik Dhamne vs Raghuvir Wamanrao Joshi, on 19 April, 2011
1 F.A.No. :1250/2008
Date of filing:03.12.2008
Date of order:19.04.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
F.A. NO.:1250 OF 2008
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. :180 OF 2007
DISTRICT FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Arvind Pundlik Dhamne,
R/o C/o Dhamne Ploting Centre,
Prahlad Sankul, 1st floor,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent )
VERSUS
Raghuvir Wamanrao Joshi,
R/o Ramkuti Nageshwarwadi,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant )
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Shri.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.P.R.Salunke for appellant, Adv.Shri.Padmakar Khekale for respondent.
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 Org.Opponent against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2008 in complaint case No.180/2007 passed by District Forum, Aurangabad. Appeal is filed alongwith application for condonation of delay.
2. Notice was issued to the respondent. Learned counsel Shri.Padmakar Khekale appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri.P.R.Salunke for appellant and learned counsel 2 F.A.No. :1250/2008 Shri.Khekale for respondent. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that applicant submitted written notes of argument before the Forum on 13.5.2008 thereafter matter was reserved for judgment without assigning any specific date for pronouncement of the judgment. It is submitted that applicant was constantly in touch with the Forum however he was informed that he will get copy of judgment when the same is pronounced and he was told that he will get copy of judgment by post. Applicant did not receive copy of judgment by post. Applicant received the postal envelope containing copy of the execution petition and notice for appearance in execution petition No.124/08. According to learned counsel it is for the first time applicant came to know about the judgment and order. He made enquiry in the office. He had no knowledge about the judgment prior to receipt of copy of execution petition on 27.11.2008. Learned counsel submitted that Postman had not adopted proper procedure. The Postman had never given written intimation in the office. According to him there is no fault for causing delay on the part of applicant. Thus he requested for condoning delay.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, contention of learned counsel for appellant that Postman has not intimated is not correct. He brought to our notice the copy of the envelope with endorsement which mentions that he tried to hand over envelope. It mentions that written information was given to the them, even then party did not meet. He submitted that in the circumstances delay cannot be said to be properly explained when Postman have given written information for handing over the envelope in question.
4. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that, judgment and order is passed on 28.07.2008 by the Forum. It also 3 F.A.No. :1250/2008 reveals that present appeal is filed by appellant on 3.12.2008. Contention of learned counsel is that Postman did not give any intimation about envelope cannot be accepted when the copy of said envelope with the endorsement of Postman is on record. There is nothing on record to show that the Postman is cross terms with appellant to make false endorsement. It is to be noted that appellant`s office is situated on the address given on the envelope in question. It appears that appellant intentionally avoided to receive the copy of judgment. In the circumstances, explanation for condonation of delay tried to be given by appellant cannot be said to be just and proper. The right accrued by the respondent cannot be taken away only because of intentional act on the part of appellant. We are not inclined to condone the delay. We pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Misc.application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
2. Consequently, appeal stand dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
5. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh, Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane