Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/11/468

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI PRAVIN BHIMRAO RATHOD - Opp.Party(s)

D R MAHADIK

24 Feb 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/11/468
 
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
THROUGH DIV MANAGER, VASHI DIV OFFICE 5, 6 & 12 1 ST FLOOR SHANTI CENTER SECTOR 17 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
D O 130200, PLOT NO C-6 NCL BANDRA PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD 1 ST FLOOR BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI 400051
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI PRAVIN BHIMRAO RATHOD
R/AT SHVIKTI NAGAR TURBHE STORE NEAR GEAONDEVI MANDIR NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Adv. D. R. Mahadik for the Applicants/Appellants
 
Non-Applicant/Respondent absent
 
ORDER

          Heard Adv. D. R. Mahadik on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants on the delay condonation application.  No one is present on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent.

 

[2]     In filing Appeal No.764 of 2011 there is a delay of 44 days on the part of the Applicants/Appellants and he seeks condonation of delay in filing appeal, the Applicants/Appellants have filed Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2011.  In paragraphs (02) & (03) of the application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Deen Dayal Gupta, Assistant Manager, delay is properly explained.  In paragraph (02) of the application datewise delay has been explained.  On the previous date, Learned Counsel for the Non-Applicant/Respondent had opposed the delay condonation application relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs.  Ram Kali ~ AIR-1987-J & K-71.  As against that Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy ~ (1998)-7-SCC-123 in which the Apex Court clearly laid down that words ‘sufficient cause’ should be construed liberally.  Acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion for deciding the delay condonation application and length of delay is not relevant.  So, relying upon this ratio of the Apex Court we are inclined to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal since sufficient cause has been clearly mentioned in paragraph (02) of the delay condonation application.

 

          Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.764 of 2011 is hereby allowed.  Consequently delay in filing appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `1,000/- payable by the Applicants/Appellants to the Non-Applicant/Respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and failing which without any further reference to the State Commission the application for condonation of delay shall automatically stand dismissed.

 

Pronounced and dictated on 24th February, 2012

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
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.