State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Sanjay Ghanshyam Bajaj Ghanshyam ... vs Sagar Ashok Patil & Ors. on 8 October, 2010
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/280
(Arisen out
of order dated 03/12/2008 in Case No. 734/2008 of District Sangli)
1. Shri.
Sanjay Ghanshyam Bajaj Ghanshyam, Ratanshi Nagar, Behind Hotel Aksharam,
Sangli Maharastra
2. Shri.
Sanjay Shreenarayan Sarda Memories Colour Lab,
Harbhat
Road,
Sangli
Maharashtra.
3. Shri.
Ashok Devkisan Malu Vakhar Bhag, Halad Bhavan, Sangli Maharashtra
4 . Shri.
Santosh Vidyadhar Kolhapure Kolhapure Gas Appliances, Gala No. 1, Tarun
Bharat Stadium, Sangli Maharashtra.
5. Shri.
Vijay Vishwanath Savale Res. of Foujadar Lane, Near India Transport, Sangli
Maharashtra.
....Appellant
Versus
1. Sagar
Ashok Patil Minors Through guardian Shri. Dinkar Balu Suryavanshi, Res. at.
Saptarshi Vinayak Nagar, Wanless Wadi, Miraj, Taluka Miraj, Dist. Sangli
Maharashtra
2. Shri.
Onkar Ashok Patil Through their guardian Shri. Dinkar Balu Suryavanshi, Res.
at Saptarshi Vinayak Nagar, Wanless Wadi, Miraj, Taluka Miraj, Dist. Sangli
Maharashtra.
3. Shri.
Hrishikesh Mukund Suryavanshi Through their guardian Shri. Dinkar Balu
Suryavanshi, Res. at Saptarshi Vinayak Nagar, Wanless Wadi, Miraj, Taluka
Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra.
4. Ms.
Seema Snehal Suryavanshi Through their guardian Shri. Dinkar Balu
Suryavanshi, Res. at Saptarshi Vinayak Nagar, Wanless Wadi, Miraj, Taluka
Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra.
5.
Manohar Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd. Sangli Branch, Uma Narayan
Complex, Harbhat Road, Sangli Maharashtra
6.
Manohar Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd., Head Office 156, Sunny Apartment,
L.B.S. Marg, Belgrami Naka, Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400 070 Maharashtra.
....Respondent
BEFORE
:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode , PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar , Member PRESENT:
Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants Mr.Dinkar Balu Suryavanshi, A.R. for respondent Nos.1to4. None for other respondents.
*JUDGEMENT/ORDER Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member There is delay of 389 days in filing this appeal and, therefore, Misc. Application No.136/2010 for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not at all explained in the application. The statement made though little bit lengthy, we would like to reproduce the same for clarity :-
7. The Applicants submit that as the District Consumer Forum had already passed ex-parte order in the above proceedings on 03/12/2008 and as there is no provision provided in the Act for review of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum; the Applicants could not approach the District Consumer Forum with correct information. In view of the same, the only alternative remedy available to the Applicants is to file the present Appeal and bring to the notice of the Honble Commission the true and correct facts that the Applicants are not the Directors of the Respondent No.6 Society and, therefore, they are not jointly and severally liable to repay the amount as directed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum in the impugned order. However, there is a delay in filing of the present Appeal.
8. The Applicants state that the Ld.DF, Sangli vide its order dated 03/12/2008 allowed the above Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1. On 21/03/2009 the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sangli issued notice u/s 27 in Execution Application No.75/2009 for non-compliance of the order dated 03/12/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.734/2008. The Applicants submit that as the Applicants were not Directors of the Respondent No.6 Society and in view of the legal advice sought by them, they did not appear in the said Complaint and/or filed their Written Reply. The Applicants submit that the Respondent No.5 Society with the malafide intention provided wrong information to the Depositors as well as the District Dy. Registrar, Sangli that the Applicants are Directors of the Respondent No.6. The Applicants continuously doing efforts for seeking correct information about the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.6 Society. On 11/2/2010 the Applicants sought information from the office of the District Dy. Registrar, Mumbai wherein the Honble District Dy.
Registrar furnished all the details of the Respondent No.6 society. In view of this, the present Applicants were continuously doing their efforts to bring the true and correct information before the Honble Forum. In view of this if there is any delay in filing the present Appeal against the impugned order and/or notice, then the same be liable to condone in the interest of justice as the same is not intentional nor deliberate. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the delay, if any, be condoned in the interest of justice.
9. The Appellants state that the appellants are the only members of the Local Advisory Board of the Respondent No.5 society, having its branch office at Sangli. The appellants did not appear before the Honble District Forum at Sangli in Consumer Complaint, as the appellant sought wrong advice from the Advocate in the Trial Court and therefore remained absent before Ld. District Consumer Forum at Sangli. The Ld. District Consumer Forum vide its Order proceeded the complaint ex-parte against the appellants. The Appellants in the month of March received the notice u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, realize the grievance of the notice and therefore immediately started to sort out the contents of the notice. The Appellants after obtaining 2nd opinion from another advocate immediately took appropriate steps and sought information from the District Deputy Registrar at Mumbai wherein it is made clear that the present appellants are not the directors of the Respondent No.5, society. The Appellants are working as members of the Local Advisory Board of the Respondent No.5, society and therefore not concerned with the day to day affairs of the society.
Erroneous belief of applicants/appellants that they are not Directors and therefore, there is no need to appear before the Forum below shows the deliberate act on the part of the applicants/appellants to remain absent and allow the proceeding to proceed ex-parte against them. They never bothered about result also. Only after the notice in execution is served upon them, they took steps to prefer this appeal. No details are furnished as to when copy of the order was served upon them by the Forum below and what they did thereafter till receipt of notice in execution. Thus, there is hardly any explanation coming from the applicants to explain the enormous delay. We find that the delay is not satisfactorily explained. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Misc. Appl. No.136/2010 for condonation of delay is rejected.
2. Appeal is not entertained accordingly.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated the 08 October 2010 [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd