Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/816/2014

Medsource Ozone Biomedicals Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Harish Agarwal Dignostic Center - Opp.Party(s)

Baldev Singh oic

14 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 816 /2014

 

Medsource Ozone Biomedicals Pvt. Ltd., regd office, New Delhi & ors.

Vs.

Dr.Harish Agarwal Diagnostic Centre, Sodala Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 14.5.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

 

Mr. Deepak Saraogi counsel for the appellant

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 11.9.2013 by which it allowed the complaint. This appeal was filed with a delay of 314 days.

2

 

The appellants have submitted an application for condonation of this delay which the respondent has objected. In the application for condonation of delay the appellants have submitted that an ex-parte order was passed on 11.9.2013 and they have come to know of this order only on 17.2.2014 and after that certified copy was obtained and appeal was filed. There has been bona fide delay in presenting the appeal. The respondent has opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.

 

We have heard the arguments of both sides and have perused the order sheet of the learned DCF. The order sheet dated 17.7.2012 says that Area Manager on behalf of opposite party no. 1 & 2 was present and he sought time for filing reply and on the next dates on 11.9.2012 and 9.11.2012 no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and the reply was closed and complaint was heard ex-parte.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has cited many judgments before us of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission in which the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned in routine unless sufficient and satisfactory reasons for delay are placed before the court. We have perused

3

 

all these judgments though we do not wish to cite all of them as we find that there are no sufficient and satisfactory reasons for delay mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. As we have mentioned above the Area Manager of the opposite parties had knowledge of this complaint and had personally appeared before the learned DCF but later on no counsel was appointed and no reply was filed and the opposite parties remained absent throughout the proceedings.

 

The learned counsel for the appellants has tried to put a strong case on merits but we feel when the reasons of inordinate delay of 314 days have not been explained, we cannot condone this delay and admit the appeal on merits. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm