Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/899

BLAKRISHNA VISHWANATH RISBUD - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

DIPAK RAUT

16 Jul 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/899
(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/07/2011 in Case No. 281/2011 of District Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban))
 
1. BLAKRISHNA VISHWANATH RISBUD
19 GANESH PRIYA PANCHAYAT BAVADI DOMBIVALI 421 201
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. GODREJ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PIROJSHA NAGAR VIKROLI EAST MUMBAI 400079
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Mr.Deepak Raut, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
......for the Appellant
 
Dr.H.L. Chulani, A.R. for the non-applicant/respondent.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

We heard Mr.Deepak Raut, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Dr.H.L. Chulani, A.R. for the non-applicant/respondent.

          The impugned order was passed on 16/07/2011.  However, copy of the impugned order which was sent on the address mentioned in the certified copy on 28/07/2011 was not received by the applicant/appellant since he had already changed that address and that fact was already informed to the District Forum.  We may accept this contention of the applicant/appellant.  However, question arises as to what he did when he knew about the order and obtained the certified copy of the order on 06/09/2011 till filing of this appeal along with application for condonation of delay which was filed on 18/10/2011.  There is no explanation offered for this period.  Therefore, there arises no question of considering sufficiency of the delay.  Under the circumstance, we find that the applicant/appellant failed to explain delay in satisfactory manner.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Application for condonation of delay stands rejected.  In the result, appeal is not entertained and stands disposed off accordingly.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Record & Proceeding be sent back to the District Forum.

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

Pronounced

Dated 16th July 2012.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
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.