Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/303

COOKWELL GAS AGENCY - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEELESH SARATHEY - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                             FIRST APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 11.11.2013 passed in C.C. No. 22/2011 by the District Forum, Raisen)  

 

COOKWELL GAS AGENCY, THROUGH

DIRECTOR PROPRIETOR.                                                  …             APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

NEELESH SARATHE AND FOUR OTHERS.                      …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      MEMBER

 

 Counsel for parties:

         

           Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                O R D E R

                                    (Passed on      .07.2016)

 

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

                   

                        This appeal is by the opposite party no.1 Cookwell Gas Agency, Mandideep, District- Raisen being aggrieved with the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raisen in CC No.22/2011.

2.                     This appeal against the order dated 11.11.2013 has been filed on 02.03.2016 which is barred by two years, two months and nineteen days.  Appellant has filed an application IA-2 for condonation of delay in filing appeal.  Reasons assigned in the application as also learned counsel for appellant submits that in compliance of the order of the District Forum the appellant deposited the awarded amount  Rs.7,76,840/- on 08.02.2014 in the District Forum.  It was advised him by counsel that the liability to pay the awarded amount is of the insurance company as the appellant is insured with the respondent no.5 the National Insurance Company Limited. Since there were directions for payment of interest, therefore the amount was deposited within one month.  It is further submitted that even after deposition of awarded amount by

-2-

the appellant, the complainant filed execution case against insurance company and the insurance company has filed an appeal bearing no. FA/14/1303 which is pending.  On receipt of notice of the said appeal, when the appellant consulted his counsel, it was advised that appeal be filed and hence the appellant has filed the present appeal which has become time barred by more than two years.  Since the appellant did not get correct legal advice, therefore the delay be condoned.

3.                     Learned counsel for appellant before me failed to give any other explanation or reasons for condonation of delay. Affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is also in a casual manner and has stated the same facts as has been mentioned in the application. In my opinion, reasons assigned for delay in filing appeal are not genuine and transparent. The appeal is hopelessly barred more than two years.  Hon’ble Apex Court in Ansul Agrawal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) has observed that “While deciding the application for condonation of delay the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation which has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora.”

4.                     In view of the above discussion I do not find sufficient reasons for condonation of delay.  There is no need to go on merits of the case.

5.                     In the result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time barred and the order passed by the District Forum so far as it relates against the present appellant is affirmed.