Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/642/2018

Shri Laxmi Cement Agency - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Radheshyam Sharma S/o late Shri Ram kumar Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Mahesh Kalwania

06 Nov 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:642/2018

 

Shri Lakshmi Cement Agency, Bypass Circle Road No. 14, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

Vs.

Radheyshyam Sharma r/o 10 Shekhawati Nagar B , Near Jodla Power House, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 6.11.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

 

Mr.Mahesh Kalwanir counsel for the appellant

 

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

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

 

2

 

District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 14.7.2016 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of two years and seven days.

 

The contention of the appellant in application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is that he could know about the impugned order only after issuance of warrant. He was bailed out from the District Forum in December 2017. Copy of the impugned order was received by him on 7.12.2017.He get ill hence, now this appeal has been filed.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

As per order sheet dated 14.10.2014 notices were issued to the appellant by registered post and as per presumption ex-parte orders were passed against the appellant. This is not the contention of the appellant that notices were not received by

 

3

 

him. Two postal receipts are on record whereby notices were sent to the appellant through registered post and in view of the legal presumption which has not been rebutted by the appellant the Forum below was right in holding that the service is complete.

 

It may also be noted that with same address of the appellant the present appeal has been filed hence, there is no reason to conclude that notices were not served on the appellant. Further more for the sake of arguments it can be taken true that notices were not served to the appellant but appellant has not disclosed the date on which he get the knowledge of the impugned order. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is purposely silent on the point. Even the date of bail order has not been disclosed. The highest case of the appellant that he received the certified copy of the order on 7.12.2017 but the appeal has been filed again with delay of more than 8 months i.e. on 21.8.2018 and no reason has been assigned for the above delay.

 

Hence, in the facts of the case there is no reason to

 

4

 

condone the extra ordinary delay of two years and seven days. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected and so also the appeal.

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm