First Appeal No. 303 of 2014 and Misc. Application No. 125 of 2014. Case: Prakash Associates and Ors. Vs Rajeev Santoshkumar Bhandari and Ors.. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 303 of 2014 and Misc. Application No. 125 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.R. Ganu, Adv. a/w. Santosh Patil, Adv. and For Respondents: M.P. Salunke, Adv. |
| Judges | Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | 2015 (2) AllMR 97 |
| Judgement Date | January 13, 2015 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Member
-
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No. 192/12 dated 30/11/2013, original opponents/appellants have preferred appeal bearing No. 303/14. However, there is a delay of 116 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the applicants/appellants have filed the present application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that he has genuine hopes in appeal on merits. Applicants/appellants have business as promoters and builders. After judgment, applicant has instructed his staff members to forward file to dealing advocate. Applicants' advocate was also waiting for the file. However, applicant was under impression that file is in custody of dealing advocate. But dealing advocate was waiting for file. In course of locating routine file, said file was traced. It is revealed that appeal remained to be preferred as file remained to be forwarded to dealing advocate. There is no deliberate or intentional delay. The delay is erroneous belief about the location of the file. If the delay is not condoned, it will cause prejudice to the applicants. Hence, it may be condoned. Respondent has opposed the application by filing reply.
-
Heard learned counsel Mr. R.R. Ganu-Advocate for the applicant/appellant and learned counsel Mr. M.P. Salunke-Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent.
-
Admittedly, consumer complaint bearing No. 192/12 was decided by the learned Addl. District Forum, Pune on 30/11/2013. The applicant has not submitted in the delay condonation application as to when the applicant had received true copy of judgment and when file was handed over to his counsel for drafting the appeal. It is not made clear as to when the file was traced out and where it was lying. If enquiry was made from the dealing advocate by the applicant No. 2 within reasonable time, applicant No. 2 could have come to know that the dealing advocate did not receive the file. Proper diligence was not exercised by the applicants. Erroneous belief that file was forwarded to the advocate cannot be termed as sufficient reason.
-
Hon'ble Apex court in the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial