| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1111248 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai |
| Decided On | Aug-03-2009 |
| Case Number | First Appeal No.652 of 2009 @ Misc.Appl.Nos.673 & 674 of 2009 (In Consumer Complaint No.286 of 2006) |
| Judge | Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honâble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honâble Member |
| Appellant | Managing Director M/S. Suman Motels Ltd., Vadgadi, Mumbai |
| Respondent | Mr. Ramesh Ganpat Taikar |
| Advocates: | Mr. Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Yuvraj Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. |
Oral Order:-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal arises out of order/award dated 27/03/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.286/2006 Mr.Ramesh Ganpat Taikar V/s. Surendra M. Khandar, Managing Director, M/s.Suman Motels Ltd. passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (âForum below in short).
It was a consumer complaint referring to non-refund of deposit amounts. The impugned award was passed ex-parte. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order refers to as to why the matter proceeded ex-parte. It is revealed that the notice of the proceedings was given and it was served on the appellant. Subsequently, there is another application to condone delay in filing complaint was filed, but no notice thereof appears to have been given to the appellant. Ex-parte order passed, therefore, suffers from illegality since there is a breach of basic principle of natural justice.
There is some delay in filing this appeal. This application for condonation of delay is contested seriously by the respondent through his Counsel Mr.Yuvraj Patil. It is contended on behalf of the Mr.Shirsat, Learned Counsel for the appellant, that they were absolutely unaware of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum and the award passed. When the Counsel for the appellant attended Forum below in connection with other legal matter came to know about the impugned order/award passed and therefore, immediately applied for certified copy and filed this appeal. In the light of the circumstances mentioned above, when there was no notice at all of an important application for condonation of delay and when the appellant has taken immediate steps to secure certified copy once knowledge was received by its Counsel and to file the appeal, we find delay in filing appeal is satisfactorily explained and deserves to be condoned.
For the reasons stated above, we find that it is a fit case for remand where both the parties will get appropriate opportunity to place their respective case and the dispute can be settled by the Forum below according to the law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
Order:
1. Misc. Appl. No.673/2009 is allowed and delay is condoned.
2. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order/award dated 27/03/2008 stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Forum below with a direction to give both parties an opportunity to file their respective pleadings (written statement and rejoinder as well as written reply to delay condonation application) and thereafter giving an opportunity to lead evidence, if any shall settle the dispute accordingly.
3. Both parties shall appear before the Forum below on 11/09/2009.
4. Forum below shall endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously and in any case within three months from 11/09/2009.
5. Misc. Appl. No.674/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.
6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.