Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/07/516

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NANDA PADMAKAR SOBHAGE - Opp.Party(s)

ADV. RATHOD

03 May 2012

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001
 
First Appeal No. A/07/516
(Arisen out of Order Dated 27/06/2006 in Case No. CC/05/248 of District None)
 
1. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA
PLOT NO. 3, SECTOR 11, C.B.D. NAGPUR
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NANDA PADMAKAR SOBHAGE
SHIVAJI NAGAR MAHEKAR TQ. MAHEKAR DIST. BULDHANA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER
  HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
  HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Adv.Ms S Meshram
......for the Appellant
 
None
......for the Respondent
ORDER

 

(Passed on 03.05.2012)

 

Order below Misc. Application No.MA/07/Nil for Condonation of Delay in Appeal No.A/07/516


Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member

 

1.      We perused the application under order and copy of impugned judgement & order.

 

2.      Undisputedly, there was delay of more than 243 days in preferring the appeal against the judgement & order dtd. 27.06.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Buldhana in consumer complaint No. CC/05/248.

 

3.      Adv. Ms S Meshram submitted that the delay which was caused in preferring the appeal was on procedural ground only. According to her, after receipt of the copy of impugned judgement & order on 06.10.2007 the applicants were required to send the case papers to its Head Office for obtaining necessary sanction of higher authority for filing the appeal. Prior to that the case papers were required to send to the legal department and therefore there was such delay on administrative ground only. It is further submitted that there is legal point involved and therefore, it is just & necessary to condone the delay. Accordingly, it is submitted to condone the delay.


4.      The respondents as well as their counsel are absent. Therefore, we have had no opportunity to hear them.

 

5.      True it is that the applicant is being a Government undertaking body, was required to obtain sanction of its higher authority for filing the appeal. The applicant was also required to obtain legal opinion. But in our view, there could be no difficulty for obtaining the necessary sanction of higher authority of the applicant in time for filing the appeal. Though applicant was required to send the case papers to its legal department and higher authority for their opinion and sanction, it could have filed the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation by obtaining sanction. On any count, there could be no reason for such inordinate delay of 243 days. Hence, it is difficult to accept the argument advanced by Adv. Ms Meshram for the applicant. 

 

6.      It is well settled law that in the absence of any just & reasonable ground no delay can be condoned much less such inordinate delay. If such delay is condoned the very object of legislature would be defeated.

 

7.      Hence, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

i.        Misc. Application for condonation stands rejected

ii.       Consequently, appeal bearing No. A/07/516 is dismissed.

iii.      No order as to cost.

iv.      Copy of this order be furnished to the parties.

 

 
 
[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL]
MEMBER
 
[ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM]
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.