State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer Welfare Association vs Shri Aniruddh Ramesh Shah on 5 May, 2015
Daily Order BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI First Appeal No. A/15/168 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/01/2015 in Case No. 298/2013 of District Nashik) 1. Consumer Welfare Association B 402, Ashoka Compplex, Justice Ranade Road, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 Mumbai Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shri Aniruddh Ramesh Shah 37, Manibhadea Racca Colony, Shahapur Road Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Shashikant A. Kulkarni PRESIDING MEMBER Dhanraj Khamatkar Member For the Appellant: Mr. A. M. Mascarenhas, authorized representative For the Respondent: None ORDER ORDER Per - Hon'ble Mr. Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act).
Original Complainants challenge an order of District Forum, Nasik dated 12/01/2015, dismissing Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2013 (Impugned judgment & order).
Facts:-
[2] Complainants Nos.2 and 3 now, with Complainant No.1 have presented the consumer complaint before the Hon'ble District Forum alleging deficiency in service for the relief of refund of amount, explaining the alleged deficiency in service committed by Opposite Parties (Respondents herein).
[3] In the year 2012, Complainants Nos.2 and 3 filed similar complaint in respect of same subject matter against the same Opposite Parties but, together with a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay. The said complaint case was registered by number CC/12/217 in which miscellaneous application was registered by number MA/12/321. The earlier complaint, however, was presented before the State Commission, Mumbai. The Bench, comprising of three Members, heard and decided application for delay condonation and dismissed the same in limine with observations that, the complaint cannot be entertained as a 'consumer dispute'. State Commission passed this order on 03/12/2012. On 24/12/2013, after about a year, the present complaint is presented in respect of same subject matter and between the same parties but, before the District Forum.
[4] We have heard the learned authorized representative Mr. A. M. Mascarenhas on behalf of the Appellants/Complainants. We have also carefully perused the record.
[5] Mr. Mascarenhas, despite concerted efforts made by him to point out to reply the query posed by the Bench, is unable to show the difference between the complaints filed earlier and subsequently, except the change of Forum.
[6] Things, which cannot be achieved directly, cannot be allowed to be obtained indirectly or by use of improper means. Unsuccessful Complainants Nos.2 and 3 at the stage of delay condonation approached Complainant No.1 working as Consumer Welfare Association and on its advice appears to have lodged another round of litigation to see that the Opposite Parties are dragged somehow to litigate the so-called cause of the Complainants. Practice followed by the association (Complainant No.1) not properly dealing with the cause of so called consumers Complainants Nos.2 and 3 and with the knowledge of result of previous attempted complaint and knowingly that the order of the State Commission having not appealed from had reached finality, is deprecable. In view of above discussed position on record, we require to dismiss the appeal. Therefore:-
ORDER Appeal stands dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on Tuesday, 05th May, 2015 [ Shashikant A. Kulkarni] PRESIDING MEMBER [ Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member