Maharashtra

StateCommission

CC/12/73

M/S PEACOCK MEDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

BARCLAYS BANK PLC - Opp.Party(s)

U B WAVIKAR

16 Aug 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/73
 
1. M/S PEACOCK MEDIA LTD
THRUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR SANTOSH SINGH COMPANY SECRETARY 24B APPOLLO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OFF MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI - 400093
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BARCLAYS BANK PLC
801/808 CEEJAY HOUSE SHIVSAGAR ESTATE DR ANNIEAR BASANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI - 400018
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Adv. Uday B. Wavikar for the Applicant/Complainant
......for the Complainant
 
Adv. Hiren Mehta for the Non-Applicant/Opponent
......for the Opp. Party
ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member

 

          Heard Adv. Uday B. Wavikar on behalf of the Applicant/Complainant and Adv. Hiren Mehta for the Non-Applicant/Opponent respectively on the application for condonation of delay.  We have also perused the delay condonation application and the written reply filed by the Advocate for the Non-Applicant/Opponent.

 

[2]     Admittedly, the Applicant/Complainant has prayed for condoning the delay of 365 days in filing the complaint.  In paragraph (20) of the delay condonation application the Applicant/Complainant merely stated that the delay is not intentional or deliberate but because of unavoidable circumstances, the delay occurred.  In the entire delay condonation application there is no explanation about the unavoidable circumstances.

 

[3]     As against this Advocate for the Non-Applicant/Opponent stated that the Applicant/Complainant has failed to point out a sufficient cause in filing the complaint within the time limit prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Merely stating that the Complainant could not file a complaint within time because of unavoidable circumstances will not be a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 365 days.  Further, the Learned Advocate had pointed out that the Applicant/Complainant himself agreed to the pre-closure charges of `30,00,000/- and instructed the Non-Applicant/Opponent to debit the same from its account as per the agreement executed between the parties.

 

[4]     The Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Complainant has produced catena of judgments in support of his contention.  We have gone through the authorities produced by the Learned Counsel.  However, the authorities/citations produced by the Learned Counsel are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

 

[5]     The Applicant/Complainant miserably failed to show a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 365 days.  Hence, we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application No.147 of 2012 praying the condonation of delay.  Consequently, Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2012 does not survive for consideration. 

 

 

 

Pronounced on 16th August, 2013

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.