Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/276

BHAGIRATH COLD STORAGE - Complainant(s)

Versus

JITENDRA PATIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

SH. VINOD MISHRA

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 276OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 19.02.2015 passed in C.C. No. 75/2012 by the District Forum, Shajapur)  

 

BHAGIRATH COLD STORAGE PVT.LTD.                            …             APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

JITENDRA PATIDAR.                                                          …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

               HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL      :      MEMBER

 

Counsel for parties:

         

           Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

             Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                O R D E R

                                    (Passed on 04.10.2016)

 

          The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

                   

                        This appeal is by the opposite party being aggrieved with the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shajapur in CC No.75/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent has been allowed.

2.                     This appeal against the order dated 19.02.2015 has been filed on 27.02.2016 i.e. barred by eleven months and seven days. IA-2, application for condonation of delay has been filed. Reasons narrated in the application are that the appellant came to know about the order only on 01.10.2015 when he applied for certified copy of the order and received the same on that very day.  Thereafter he took some time to deposit the necessary pre-deposit amount before filing the appeal.  On perusal of the record and ordersheet we find that free of cost certified copy of the order was received by the opposite party/ appellant on 20.03.2015.  This is second time he applied for the certified copy of order on 16.10.2015 after making payment of necessary fee. Thus we find that the

-2-

reasons given for condonation of delay are very superfluous and not up to the mark.   The appellant was well aware of the case and it was his moral duty to file the appeal within prescribed time.

3.                     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578  has held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained. This appeal is hopelessly barred by more than seven months and no satisfactory explanation has been assigned by the appellant for the same. We do not find any sufficient cause for condonation of this delay. 

4.                     In the result, the application IA-2 for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time at the admission stage without going into the merits of the case.