This is an application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal belatedly i.e. after one month and 20 days. For the said purpose he has filed an application for condonation of delay. In para 2 of the application, the appellant/applicant states that he received the copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum on 21/03/2009 and which was lost and therefore, he applied for second copy on 09/04/2009 and received it on 09/04/2009. But the applicant was not well and suffering from some illness from 1st week of May, 2009 and due to this reasons he could not contact the advocate. As there was summer vacation in the Month of May, 2009, concerned advocate was not available and he came back to Mumbai on 04/06/2009 and thereafter, the appeal came to be filed.
We heard Adv.Mr.A.J.Chougule for appellant and Adv.Mr.Ashutosh Marathe for respondent.
This ground is not convincing one. There is no just and sufficient ground. Copy of order was received on 09/04/2009 and that was the second copy and from that date within a period of one month, the appeal should have been filed. But the appeal came to be filed as late as on 10/06/2009. So, there is delay of one month and 20 days. That delay is not explained by giving cogent and convincing cause and therefore, we find that said application is not allowable in law and the same is liable to be rejected.
By way of abundant precaution, we have also gone through the merits of the case. We are finding that complaint was filed by the respondent and the grievance is that there was supply of Tata Motor car by opp.party nos. 1 & 2 having manufacturing defect. But it has been noted by District Consumer Redressal Forum in its order that no proof of expert has been adduced to prove that car was having manufacturing defect. Forum below also found that after taking delivery of the car, the car was brought for free maintenance/servicing offered by the manufacturer. So, there was no manufacturing defect in the car. Moreover, the complainant alleges that running of car was 1,36,865 Kms. and if such is the run of the car that car was having no manufacturing defect. So, even on merits respondent had no case. In the circumstances, we hold that order passed by the Forum below is correct and sustainable in law. Appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Hence, we pass the following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1. M.A.No.950/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.
3. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
