M/S. Maharaja Developers Thr. ... vs The Registrar Consumer Disputs ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 880 Bom

                                1                                        wp4123.16




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2016


 M/s Maharaja Developers, 
 through Partner Shri Vijay Tulshiramji
 Dangare, Aged about 57 years, 
 Occupation - Private, R/o 428, Anand
 Nagar, Behind Sakkardara Police Station,
 Volleyball Ground, Nagpur.                            ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 1) The Registrar, Consumer Disputes 
     Redressal State Commission, Maharashtra
     State, Nagpur Bench.

 2) Smt. Shakuntala wd/o Dashrath Moudekar,
     Aged about 66 years, Occupation - Household,

 3) Shri Sanjay s/o Dashrath Moudekar,
     Aged about 48 years, Occupation - Private,

 4) Mrs. Varsha w/o Devendra Deoghare,
     Aged about 43 years, Occupation - Household,

     Nos. 2 to 4 R/o Shivam, Golibar Chowk,
     West Panchpaoli Road, Nagpur. 

 5) Mrs. Lekha w/o Ashok Gonnade,
     Aged about 41 years, Occupation - Household,
     R/o 12-12-160/11, Ravindranagar, Sitafal
     Mandi, Secunderabad (Telangana).             ....            RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:24:02 :::
                                        2                                          wp4123.16




 ______________________________________________________________
             Shri P.D. Randive, Advocate for the petitioner, 
             Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1,
        Shri N.H. Shams, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 20 MARCH, 2017.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri P.D. Randive, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms.

S.Z. Haider, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1

and Shri N.H. Shams, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposing the appeal

filed by the petitioner as abated as the petitioner failed to take steps to

bring on record the legal representatives of the respondent before the

Commission.

4. Though the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to

5 opposed the petition on the ground that inspite of several

opportunities given to the petitioner, it failed to take appropriate steps

3 wp4123.16

in the matter, in my view, considering the facts of the case the interests

of justice would be sub-served by the following order :

(i) The impugned order is set aside.

(ii) The matter is remitted to the Commission for enabling the present petitioner (appellant before the Commission) to take appropriate steps in the mater.

(iii) The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that they will appear before the Commission subject to completion of formalities by the appellant before the Commission.

The petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall appear before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra Circuit Bench Nagpur on 02-05-2017 and abide by the further orders/instructions in the matter.

(iv) As the appeal is of 2014, the Commission shall dispose the appeal till 30-06-2017.

(v) This order is passed subject to payment of costs of Rs.12,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent Nos.2 to 5. The amount of costs shall be paid and receipt shall be produced on the record of the appeal before the Commission on the date of appearance. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

JUDGE adgokar