STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Port Blair.
Appeal Case No. 2 of 2003
Present 1. Justice SN. Bhatacharjee
President,State Commission
2. Shri. D.P. Mukhopadhyay
Member, State Commission
3. Ms.G.Kaur
Member, State Commission
1. Deputy General Manager,
Unit Trust of India,
Kolkatta Main Branch Office,
29, N.S. Road, Kolkatta
2. P.N. Raju,
Chief Representative,
UTI, Port Blair. Appellant
-Vs
S. S. Srikumar,
Lecturer, JNRM Govt. College Respondent
Dated: 25.06.2004
JUDGEMENT
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Appellant could not file this appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgement on the grounds which are tabulated below
| Cause | Date | No. Of Days |
(i) | “Date of Judgement” | 30.09.2002 | |
(ii) | “Receipt of copy of the Judgement” | 30.09.2002 | |
(iii) | Date of sending the copy to Calcutta office | 10.10.2002 | 10 |
(iv) | Date of consultation with Sr. Advocate at Calcutta | 16.10.2002 | 06 |
(v) | “Preparartion of draft” | 10.11.2002 | 24 |
(vi) | Draft sent back to Port Blair | 15.12.2002 | 35 |
(vii) | Appeal petition prepared | 28.12.2002 | 07 |
(viii) | Cease –work by the Members of Local Bar | Middle of November 2002 to end of December 2002 | |
(ix) | Appeal petition after vetting came to Advocate on record | 30.01.2003 | 39 |
(x) | Date of filing the appeal | 18.02.2003 | 18 |
Therefore there was delay of 79 (109-30) days in filing the appeal and not 34 days as stated in the application. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has prescribed the period of 30 days for filing an appeal. We are not satisfied that the grounds stated above constitute sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period fixed. When period of limitation is 30 days the Party aggrieved by the judgement cannot be allowed to consume 16 days for instructing the Advocate to prepare the draft copy of the appeal. It is also not justifiable that the Appellant would take 3 weeks time prepare the draft and another one month for vetting. Cease-work by the members of Local Bar did not cause additional delay. There is no reason why the memo of appeal shall come back to the Advocate on record after vetting after the expiry of a month, particularly when there is no averment that journey was performed by a vessel. In a case reported in 1986-1999 Consumer — 5029 (NS) (Madha Bhai R. -Patron & Others -Vs- State Bank of India, Head Office, Ahmedabad and another, the National Commission did not condone even a delay of 9 days on the ground that the delay in filing of the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. We are of the opinion that the delay in the instant case occasioned by several factors mentioned hereinabove, if condoned, will make the main provision totally eclipsed by and subservient to the proviso. In our opinion, this would frustrate the purpose of the Act.
The application for condonation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
