First Appeal No. A/07/1581 (Arisen out of Case No. 169/2007, District Kolhapur). Case: 1. Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Aurangabad and others, 2. Shrine Auto Private Limited, Kolhapur, 3. Auto Bahn Industries Private Limited, Mumbai Vs Pawankumar Mahabirprashad Bhageria. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Parts:1. Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Aurangabad and others, 2. Shrine Auto Private Limited, Kolhapur, 3. Auto Bahn Industries Private Limited, Mumbai Vs Pawankumar Mahabirprashad Bhageria
Issuing Organization:Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Resolution Date:February 01, 2011
Case:First Appeal No. A/07/1581 (Arisen out of Case No. 169/2007, District Kolhapur)
Ley aplicable:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Judges:S. B. Mhase (President) & S. R. Khanzode (Judicial Member)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

S. B. Mhase (President)

This is an application filed by the appellant/applicant for recalling and/or setting aside the order dated 25/10/2007 passed by State Commission in M.A.no.2142/2007 and F.A.no.1581/2007.

Initially, the respondent had filed complaint no.169/2007 before District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. Said complaint was decided on 20/09/2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, F.A.no.1581/2007 was filed on 13/12/2007. However, there was delay of 70 days in filing said appeal and therefore; M.A.No.2142/2007 was filed by the appellant/applicant for condonation of delay. Said delay condonation application was for hearing before State Commission on 25/10/2010. It was earlier for hearing on 09/08/2010 and lastly appeared on board on 25/10/2010. On 25/10/2010 no one was present for the appellant, but it appears that one Mr.Vishal Bodhe, as proxy Advocate for Adv.Mr.P.Patil, appearing for appellant, appeared on said date. He simply prayed for adjournment without intimating any difficulty of Adv.Mr.P.Patil. Adjournment was rejected by the State Commission and thereafter, delay condonation application was heard on merit and on merit order has been passed rejecting the delay condonation application and so also in the result, appeal was rejected. To recall this order of State Commission, present application has been filed

We are not in favour of entertaining this application, firstly, because order of delay condonation application has been passed by State Commission on merit and since, there is...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL