S.R. KANOJIA Vs. RAMESH K. PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. GD. Talreja -Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person. This is an appeal filed by one Mr. S.R. Kanojia, Divisional Engineer, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai challenging the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban, in consumer complaint no. 239/2009 decided on 11/10/2011. By this order, the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - and by way of costs of the litigation Rs. 5000/ -. It is further directed that from the date of receipt of the order within 8 weeks the order shall be complied with, otherwise, the appellant shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of compensation. This order was challenged by filing this appeal on 29/11/2011. The appeal was listed for admission on 25/01/2012. On that date Mr. Piyush Ranjan -Advocate appeared for the appellant. Though the name of Mr. Piyush Ranjan -Advocate appears in the vakalatnama, however, said vakalatnama has not been signed by Advocate Piyush Ranjan. There are also names of Mr. Haresh Motwani, Mr. Jayant Chandnani, Mr. R.K. Tambe, Ms. Sejal Kulkarni on the said vakalatnama. However, these advocates have not signed the vakalatnama. Vakalatnama has been signed by Mr. G.D. Talreja, Mr. Vinod Talreja, Mr. Nitin Jadhav and Ms. Sarika Sawant. We have mentioned because the advocate who appeared on 25/01/2012 was not an advocate for the appellant. He has also not produced on record authority letter from the advocates on record. However, in spite of that on his oral request an adjournment was granted and the appeal was adjourned to 09/05/2012.

(2.) ON 09/05/2012, Advocate Vinod Talreja who is on record appeared before the State Commission and after hearing him, appeal was admitted. Not only that the Bench which heard the matter on that date being aware of the fact that the issue of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is pending before the larger bench of this Commission, observed that the matter will have to be listed along with that matter. However, since respondent is required to be served after admission of the matter, bench directed to "issue notice after admission to the Respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due only through Commission at the costs of appellant r/o. 09/10/2012. Appellant shall make compliance of this order within a period of seven days from today." On the same day application - -Exhibit 6 by which the appellant was seeking stay to the execution of the order was also heard by the State Commission and the conditional order was passed.

(3.) WHAT we find that the fact still remains that the notice was directed and the appellants were under obligation to comply with direction of the State Commission as reflected in order dated 09/05/2012. At the cost of repetition we state that in view of the official endorsement made, which we have already referred above, necessary compilation were not submitted to the office within 7 days and the notice could not be sent to the respondent.