VIP BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. GOVIND SADASHIV LAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the decision of complaint Nos.115 and 116/2008 and 121/2008 decided by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane on 27.2.2009. It appears that since common point is involved in all the complaints. The complaints were allowed and therefore, org. opponent is the appellant before State Commission. As against complaint No.115/2008, Appeal No. 967/2009 has been filed while A.No. 968/2009 has been filed against complaint No. 116/20q8 and A.No. 969/2009 has been filed against complaint No. 121/2008. The respondent No.1 in Appeal No. 967/2008 is one Mr. Govind Sadashiv Lad, who is a complainant in complaint No. 115/2008 and Mr.Nikhil D.Khosla is the respondent/org. complainant in A.No. 968/2009 and Mrs.Chandravati R. Chauhan is the respondent in A.No. 969/2009. Even though judgment in complaint Nos. 115 and 116/2008 is common, three separate appeals have been filed.

(2.) IN filing these appeals, there is delay of 87 days and therefore, M.A. No. 1154/2009 is filed in A.No. 967/2009 and M.A. No. 1156/2009 is filed in A.No. 968/2009 are filed and M.A. No. 1158/2009 is filed in A.No. 969/2009. These appeals were listed for admission and hearing on delay application on 3.12.2009 and to that effect Mr. A.Z. Mookhtiyar has acknowledged the order sheet of State Commission. On 27.10.2009 the appellants appeared before the State Commission and the State Commission passed order issuing notices to the respondents before admission and ad -interim stay was granted to the impugned order till returnable date. There was no stay granted in A.No. 969/2009. The returnable date for all appeals was 1.3.2010 and the point of limitation was kept open. It appears from the order sheet that on 1.3.2010 due to holiday the matter could not be heard and Board was discharged and matter was adjourned to 22.4.2010. On 22.4.2010 it was found that only notice of appeal was served on the respondent. However, the copy of the delay condonation application was not served on the respondent. So also the copy of stay application was given in the presence of State Commission. Therefore, time was granted so that respondent can file reply to these and it was adjourned to 7.7.2010. On 7.7.2010 the Advocate for the respondent was present, Advocate for the appellant was not present; however, the appellant himself was present. He reported that Mr. A.Z. Mookhtiar is not available and therefore, he wants to withdraw his Vakalatnama and he has filed the application to that effect. A letter of Mr. A.Z. Mookhtiar has been placed on record wherein said Advocate has informed to engage another Advocate. Therefore, having found that appellant is present; under these circumstances we adjourned the matter to 28.9.2010 so that appellantcan engage the Advocate and conduct the case. However, when today the appeal is called neither the appellant nor the newly engaged Advocate of appellant, if any is present before us. No one reports the difficulty of the appellant. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to proceed in the absence of parties. It is required to be noted that even Adv. Sharma for the respondent is absent and clerk from his office/Mr.Vishal Mane reports that Advocate has gone to Karnataka, since his brother has expired. However, respondent's absence need not detain us from proceedings in the matter.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , this case has been decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 27.2.2009 and copies were received by the appellant on 29.3.2009. However, from the postal packet which is on record, we find that it has been received on 22.3.2009 and not on 29.3.2009. Therefore, there will be delay of 90 days instead of 87 days.