NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/290/2013

M/S. MANGAL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJSHEKHAR RAO & MS. GAURI PURI

26 Aug 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 02/11/2012 in Complaint No. 25/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. M/S. MANGAL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
Through its Authorized Representative, Shri Gaurav jajodia, 309, Shakuntalam Building, 59, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110 019.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & 2 ORS.
Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002,
Tamil Nadu.
2. Chief Regional Manager
Indian Overseas Bank, Regional office Ranchna Building, 3rd Floor, 2nd Rajendra Palace, Pusa Road,
New Delhi-110 008
3. Assistant General Manager
Indian Overseas Bank, 14-15, Fram Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110 019.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Ms. Gauri Puri, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 26 Aug 2013
ORDER

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 85 days, excluding 42 days taken in obtaining certified copy of the order, which is over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal.   Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.  Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 85 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  The only reason given for condonation of delay of 85 days is that the appellant does not have an internal legal department and the appellant had to engage a new lawyer to entertain the instant appeal which resulted in the delay, particularly since there was some difficulty in gathering the relevant documents and correspondences between the appellant and the respondent etc.

          Day to day delay has not been satisfactorily explained.  Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  AuthorityIV  (2011) CPJ  63  (SC)” has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been  prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. 

            We are not satisfied with the explanation given.  The inordinate delay of 85 days in filing the appeal which is over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal, under the circumstances, cannot be condoned.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed as a consequence thereof appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.                              

 

 
......................
VINEETA RAI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
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.