CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



REVISION PETITION NO. 23 OF 2009 Date of filing : 11/02/2009

IN MISC. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2008 Date of order : 03/08/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 118 OF 2004

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE



Smt.Vandana Nandkumar Barne

R/at 5/775, Parvaticharan Soc.,

93, Laxmi Nagar, Pune-411 009. Petitioner/org. complainant

V/s.

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Telephone Bhavan, Bajirao Road,

Pune 411 002.

2. The Accounts Officer,

(Telephone Revenue)(West)

34-35, Veer Savarkar Udyog Bhavan

Congress House Road,

Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005.

3. Sub-Divisional Engineer

City Fatex Telephone Exchange

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Pune 411 002. Opponents/org. O.Ps.


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member

Present: Mr.Sanjay Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.V.D. Shukla, Advocate for the opponents.

- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27/10/2008 passed in Misc. Application No.12/2008 filed on 05/07/2008 for restoration of consumer complaint No.118/2004 which stood dismissed for default on 07/05/2008. There was delay of about 29 days in filing restoration application which sought to be condoned. Forum below dismissed the application and feeling aggrieved thereby, this Revision Petition is preferred.

We heard Mr.Sanjay Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.V.D. Shukla, Advocate for the opponents. He files Vakalatnama, taken on record. Perused the record.

Forum below while passing impugned order observed that the application for condonation of delay is vague and no specific reason is assigned by the applicant to condone the delay and therefore, delay being not satisfactorily explained, dismissed the application.

We have also perused the affidavit in support filed by the revisionist in support of the application for condonation of delay. Affidavit is always in proof of the facts contained in the application. In the instant case, no fact except that the applicant came to know about the order of dismissal on 30/06/2008 is averted. Filing of restoration application is a fact on record and so as to the fact that certified copy which is filed in support of the application was received by the revisionist on 05/07/2008. What ought to have been stated and explained on the factual arena is about as to when the free of cost true certified copy sent by the Forum below as per statutory provision was received by the revisionist, as to how she came to know about the order of dismissal on 30/06/2008 and other aspects which could be assessed to examine the case as to whether revisionist has explained the delay satisfactorily or not. When the revisionist herself did not avert any facts, Forum below could not consider the same and come to the conclusion that delay is not satisfactorily explained. There is Marathi proverb ֛֟ * ָ -֟ * ָ (If there is no water in well, there could be no water in the water lift). If it is so, Forum below could not be blamed for dismissing the application. Therefore, Revision Petition is without any merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Revision Petition stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



dd.