State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Sunil Vasantrao Chawhan vs Shri. Deepak Nagesh Kulkarni on 14 February, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/07/579
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/09/2006 in Case
No. 275/2006 of District Sangli)
1.Mr. Sunil Vasantrao Chawhan Ahilyadevi Holkar Chowk, Shinde Mala, Sangli
2. Deepak Chandrashekar Kelkar R/o. 827, Behind School No. 2, Gaonbhag, Sangli.
3. Shivkumar Gyanchand Jumrani R/o. Civil Hospital Road, Stand Road, Sangli.
4. Sukumar Vasant Shiralkar R/o. Flat No. 21, Near Krishna Hospital, Sangli.
5. Kumar Manohar Golwalkar R/o. Vasant Dham, Sayhadri, Sangli
6. Rajendra Balkrishna Potdar R/o. 1012A, Gaonbhag, Sangli
7. Samita Manish Vaychal R/o. Shaniwarpeth, Madhav Nagar, Sangli.
...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Shri. Deepak Nagesh Kulkarni R/o. Shivpark, Apt.
Flat No. 3, Paranjape Colony, Patrakar Nagar, Behind S. T. Stand, Sangli.
2. Varsha Deepak Kulkarni R/o. Shivpark Apt., Flat No. 3, Paranjape Colony, Patrakar Nagar, Opp. S. T. Stand, Sangli
3. Nikhil Deepak Kulkarni, Minor through Guardian Deepak Nagesh Kulkarni, R/o. Shivpark Apt., Flat No. 3, Paranjape Colony, Patrakar Nagar, Opp. S. T. Stand, Sangli.
4. Parag Deepak Kulkarni, Minor through guardian Deepak Nagesh Kulkarni, R/o. at Shivpark Apt., Flat No. 3, Paranjape Colony, Patrakar Nagar, Opp. S. T. Stand, Sangli.
5. Sunetra Bhalchandra Paranjape R/o. at Paranjape Colony, Patrakarnagar, Sangli
6. Sanjay Gopal Damale R/o. Near R. M. High School, Bramhapuri, Miraj
7. Ruturaj Bhalchandra Paranjpe Paranjape Bungalow, Patrakar Nagar, Behind S. T. Stand, Sangli.
8. Rajesh Parshuram Aarwale Navin Vasahat, Behind Balaji Mill, Shivaji Nagar, Sangli
9. Shrikrishna Jamburao Mali R/o. 504, Mali Gulli, Khanbhag, Sangli
10. Managing Director, Janlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Sangli 22, Chaphalkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli
11. Anand alias Bhalchandra Paranjape, Janlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli, Paranjape Paranjape Bungalow, Patrakar Nagar, Sangli
12. Branch Manager, Janlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli Shamrao Nagar Branch, 100 feet Road, Sangli ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Both the parties absent.
(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member ) (1) Both the appellant and the respondents are remaining absent in spite of the fact of notices published on notice board of the Commission, the Bar and internet.
Beside this, by way of abundant precaution, intimation of todays date was also posted to both the parties by post on 27/01/2012. Since 2007, the appeal is pending for admission. We, therefore, prefer to consider this appeal on its merit for admission.
(2) This appeal filed by the original opponent Nos.2 to 6, 11 & 12, takes an exception to an order dated 25/09/2006 passed in Consumer Complaint No.275/2006, Mr.Deepak Nagesh Kulkarni & ors. Vs. Mrs.Sunetra Bhalchandra Paranjape & ors, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (Forum in short).
(3) The consumer complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of the Janlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli for not refunding deposits. The consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant/opponents were directed to refund the deposit. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred. There is a delay of 178 days in filing the appeal and hence the application for condonation of delay.
(4) As per the explanation statement in the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that after receiving intimation of the impugned order, the appellants contacted their advocate and as per the legal advice, instead of filing appeal, they preferred to file a case before Co-operative Court for declaration and permanent injunction against the co-operative society that the award passed is illegal as against them.
Subsequently, after receipt of the notice from Tahasildar, Sangli, the appellants approached their advocate who advised to file the first appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is preferred. There is a delay of 178 days in filing the appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is made. If the applicant/appellant perused the wrong remedy and for which they failed to show that they were bonafidely prosecuting that remedy, if cannot be said that the explanation statement offered any sufficient reason to condone delay. Under the circumstances, we hold to pass the following order.
ORDER (1) Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. In the result appeal is not admitted.
(2) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 14th February, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER