State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Chandrakant Vishwanath Phadake vs Shri. Ajit Gopal Mantri & Anr. on 11 November, 2011
20/10/2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/05/1256 a/w
MA/05/1597
(Arisen out of Order Dated
03/09/2004 in Case No. 708/2003 of District Solapur)
1.
Shri. Chandrakant Vishwanath Phadake
R/o.
635, South Kasaba, Solapur
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
Shri. Ajit Gopal Mantri
R/o.
519, South Kasaba, Solapur
Maharashtra
2.
SADASHIV GANGADHAR VAIDYA
R/O.622, SOUTH KASABA,SOLAPUR
3.
NRUSINGH EKANATH KULKARNI
R/O.47B,ANTROLIKAR
NAGAR,SOLAPUR
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble
Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
None for the Appellant.
Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Respondent Nos.1 & 3 present in person.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member (1) Appellant Chandrakant Vishwanath Phadake, who was original Opponent No.3 in Consumer Complaint No.708/2003 has filed this appeal against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur, whereby along with Appellant other two Opponents were directed to refund amount of Rs.81,040/- (deposit amount) to the Complainant along with interest @6% per annum from 29.05.2003 till the date of payment and they were also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.500/- towards costs to the Complainant. Aggrieved by this order only Opponent No.3 has filed this appeal.(2)
This appeal was lying unattended since 2005. It was placed before us on 5th September, 2011 for passing orders. We had directed office to issue intimation about the next date of hearing to both the parties by ordinary post.
Accordingly on 29.10.2011 office has sent notice to both the parties informing todays date of hearing. But the Appellant has not come to argue the appeal.(3)
We are finding that there is no need to go into the merit of the case for the simple reason that in filing this appeal there is delay of 9 months and 11 days for which Misc.Application No.1597/2005 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay. We have perused the said Misc.Application for condonation of delay. But, the grounds mentioned are not sound enough to prompt us to condone the delay.
One of the grounds mentioned in the condonation of delay application is that after the judgement and award was passed in October, 2004, he had approached various persons to get advice as to what should be done against the said judgement but he could not get proper advice and therefore, there has been delay. He was also advised that there was no remedy against the above order.
In the second ground he also stated that because of lack of knowledge in law he had filed the appeal belatedly.
He then consulted Advocate for giving proper guidance and three months period was already over. Though he stated that he was suffering from spondylities and that was the main reason for not filing the appeal and he was bed ridden.
However, in support of condonation of delay application he has filed affidavit and medical certificate of Dr.Ravindra Pujari, who has given certificate that Shri C.V. Phadke has been under his treatment for cervical spondylities and vertigo from 02.12.2004 to 09.07.2005 and this appeal has been filed on 15.07.2005. It is pertinent to note that a person who is suffering from spondylitis and vertigo cannot be asked to take bed rest as has been mentioned in the condonation of delay application supported by an affidavit.
In fact, he was simply advised to take rest and not bed rest as per certificate. There are many Government Officers who are suffering from spondylitis and vertigo and by proper medication they can keep them alright and moreover in the medical certificate it is nowhere mentioned that Doctor had advised him to take bed rest for so many months and thus affidavit and certificate is liable to be discarded and we hold that there is no just and sufficient cause made out by the Appellant to seek condonation of delay of 9 months and 11 days. Hence we are not inclined to condone the delay. In the circumstances, after hearing three Respondents, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application No.1597/2005 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
(ii) Consequently Appeal No.1256/2005 does not survive for consideration.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 11th November, 2011 [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatka] Member ep