Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/739/2015

Babu Lal Sharma s/o Madan Lal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Santokba Durblji Memorial Hospital Medical Reasearch Centre Jaipur - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Sharma

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 739 /2015

 

Babulal Sharma s/o Madanlal Sharma r/o Lakshmi Niwas, Ward No. 18, Basant Vihar,Sikar Distt. Sikar.

 

Vs.

 

Manager, Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital Cum Meducal Research Centre, Bhawani Singh Marg,Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 08.01.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma counsel for the appellant

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the court below has passed the order on 25.11.2014. The appellant was working in Shillong,Meghalaya. His wife has been suffered heart attack in January 2015. Hence, he could not contact to the counsel and delay has occasioned in filing the appeal.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the original application.

 

It is an admitted case of the appellant that the order was passed on 25.11.2014. Hence the limitation to file the appeal was expires on 24.12.2014 but as per the contention of the appellant his wife has suffered heart attack in January 2015. The documents which has been submitted with the application also shows that his wife has been admitted in January 2015. Hence, illness of his wife has no bearing on the issue of delay of filing the appeal. Further certificate shows that the appellant was working in Shillong for the last 40 years and he has filed the

3

 

original complaint when he was working at Shillong. Hence, working at Shillong has no bearing in the matter as he has filed the complaint before the court below when he was working at Shillong and in the same way he could file the appeal before the court within limitation. Hence, the explanation given by the appellant has no bearing in the present case. There is no reason to condone the delay. Hence,application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected so also the appeal.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm