State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dilip Shivanand Kotibhaskar vs Dilip Jayant Jadhav on 25 October, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Misc.Application NO.MA/16/157 IN Appeal No.A/16/328
Mr.Dilip Shivanand Kotibhaskar
R/o.Infrastructure & Development Pvt.Ltd.
Pune, Pawar Heights
In front of Hotel Raviraj, Bhandarkar Road
Deccan, Pune .....Applicant/Appellant
Versus
1. Dilip Jayvant Jadhav
2.Sou.Meena Dilip Jadhav
Both R/o.Silver Oak Park Building
Flat no.8, MSEB Road
Vishrambag, Sangli
3. Ramchandra S.Punekar
4. Gopal S Punekar
Both R/o.Behind School no.26
Saroday Colony, Behind Swaroop Theater
Near New Railway Station Sangli
Taluka Miraj, District Sangli
5. Sailaxmi Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha
Maryadit, Sangli
Near State Bank, Gaonbhag
Sangli
6. Jagannath G Jadhav
R/o.G.D.Dixit Chowk
Ward no.9, Near Kshanat Mudran Seva
Near Sena Mandir, Manewada
Gaonbhag, Sangli
7.Vitthal V.Patil
Near City High School
Balaji Apartment
Near Trishul Agency
Gaonbhag, Sangli
8.Dr.Suresh S.Jadhav
R/o.Ghadage Hospital
Baypass Road, Sangli
9.Kedar Prabhakar Athavale
R/o.In front of Sattikar Ganpati
Gaonbhag, Sangli
10.Ramesh Suresh Khilare
R/o.Saidarshan Dining Hall
1
Maruti Road, Sangli
11.Dattatraya M Otari
R/o.Patane Plot, Haripur Road, Sangli
12.Sou.Puja Anand Khandagale
R/o.Anand Suing Machine Company Near
1054, Shri Datta Lodge
Gaonbhag, Sangli
13.Sou.Anjali Anil Pawar
R/o.Datta Chowk, Old Jakat Naka
Adharsh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha
Maryadit, Sangliwadi
14.Mansing Tukaram Sakate
R/o.Mansing Palace, Chaitanyanagar,
Near Shreyas Residency
Sangli
15.Sanjay Shivaji Bhosale
Near Shri Swami Samarth Mandir
State Bank of India,
South Shivaji Nagar branch
Near Kaiwalyadham, Gaonbhag
Sangli
16.Shamrao Indar Bondre
R/o.Krishna Mata Chowk,
Sutar Galli, Indrajeet Bungalow
Haripur, Sangli
17.Sou.Surekha Ramchandra Yedage
R/o.Zashi Colony, Behind Dr.Patangrao
Mahavidhyalay, Sangliwadi ...Respondents
BEFORE: Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
PRESENT: Adv.Yuvraj Warghade for the applicant/appellant.
Adv.M.Y.Tamhankar for respondent nos.5 to 12 and 14.
Mr.Dilip Jaywant -A.R. for respondent nos.1 to 4.
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr.D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.29/2014 on 03/02/2015 directing opponent nos.1 to 14 to pay the amount deposited by complainants to them along with interest on that amount along with costs 2 and compensation, applicant who was original opponent no.4 in that complaint has preferred this appeal along with application for condonation of delay. Learned Advocate appearing for applicant submitted that applicant had tendered his resignation as Director of the society on 07/08/2006. The same was accepted by the society on 09/09/2006. Hence applicant is not responsible in respect of any amount deposited with the society after 07/08/2006. He submitted that except one deposit of complainants with society, all other deposits were payable in the year 2007 and thereafter. Hence, applicant/ appellant is not responsible in respect of that payment. However, the Learned District Forum has also considered applicant responsible in respect of the payments to be made to the complainants. For that purpose, applicant has filed appeal challenging the order passed by the Learned District Forum.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that after passing of the impugned order, the other opponents had also filed appeal against that order. However, at that time they had not made applicant as appellant in that appeal and shown him as respondent in that appeal. When applicant had asked about the same, he was advised that he can be transposed as appellant in that appeal. Hence, in that respect applicant had taken legal advice from advocate. However, his advocate advised him to file separate appeal. He submitted that thereafter applicant had given instructions for filing appeal to advocate at Kolhapur and produced all the documents before him. Thereafter, he had taken decision to file this present appeal. However, during that period delay of 11 months and 17 days has caused in filing appeal. Delay caused is not intentional and deliberate. Hence, the same be condoned and hence applicant be given an opportunity to contest this appeal on merits.
3. Opponents/non applicants contested the application by filing their reply on record. Learned Advocate appearing for non applicant submitted that the applicant has contested the complaint before the Learned District Forum. He had knowledge of the order passed by the Learned District Forum. The 3 reason given for delay is not proper and the same is not acceptable. He is also responsible along with other opponents in respect of the amounts deposited by the complainants and hence in the impugned order he is also shown responsible along with other opponents. They submitted that as delay is not properly explained, application filed by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay be rejected.
4. On perusal of the record it appears that the impugned order was passed by the Learned District Forum Sangli in consumer complaint no.CC/14/29 on 03/02/2015. The applicant was opponent no.4 in that complaint. It appears that the order was passed ex-parte against the applicant. Copy of the order was sent to the parties by the Learned District Forum on 05/02/2015. The applicant must have received the same in due course of time. After passing of order, applicant learnt that he has also been made responsible along with other opponents in respect of payment to be made to the complainants. Hence, he had contacted other opponents. At that time, he learnt that other opponents have already filed appeal against the impugned order. At that time he also learnt that in that appeal other opponents have not joined him as appellant and shown him as respondent. Hence, applicant had knowledge in respect of the order passed by the Learned District Forum at that time and at that time he also realized that against that order appeal is required to be filed. At that time he was advised that he can file application to transpose himself as appellant in that appeal. Hence, he had taken advice about the same from his advocate. However, his advocate advised him to file separate appeal. Thereafter he had given instructions to his advocate and filed this appeal. However, while filing this appeal delay of 11 months and 17 days has been caused. On perusal of the application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay it appears that in causing delay he has not given any cogent reasons. It is his contention that he had given instructions to his advocate at Kolhapur and thereafter going through different documents his advocate has filed this appeal. However delay of 11 months and 17 days had been caused in filing appeal.
45. We are of the opinion that applicant has not given any sufficient reason for condonation of delay. As delay has not been satisfactorily explained, the application filed by the applicant is to be rejected. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Misc.application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
2. Pursuant to which appeal filed by the applicant/appellant against the impugned order also cannot be considered.
3. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 25th October, 2018.
[Usha S.Thakare] Presiding Judicial Member [D.R.Shirasao] Judicial Member Ms 5