| First Appeal No. A/153/2015 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/05/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/285/2013 of District North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat) |
| | | | 1. The Manger, Bajaj Auto Emporium | | 43, Feeder Road, P.O. & P.S. - Belgharia, Dist. North 24 Pgs., W.B., Kolkata-700 056. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Sri Bapi Saha | | S/o Sri Tapan Saha, Presently at 99, Janakalyan, Nimta, Kolkata -700 049, P.O. & P.S. Nimta, Dist. North 24 Pgs., W.B. | | 2. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. | | Mani Square, 6th Floor, 164, Manicktala Main Road, Mani Square, 41, Canal Circle Road, Kolkata-700 054, P.O. Kankurgachi, P.S. -Phool Bagan. | | 3. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. | | Regd. & Head Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 006. | | 4. The Manager, Family Credit Ltd. | | Regd.& Head Office- Technopolis, 7th floor, Wing-A, Plot no.4, Block-BP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091, North 24 Pgs. | | 5. Rolta Motors | | Indicon Manor, V.I.P. Road, Baguiati(Narayantala West), P.O. Deshbandhunagar, P.S. Baguiati, Kolkata-700 059. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Order No.4 date: 17-07-2015 Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 1&4 are present. Respondent Nos. 2&3 appear through Ld. Advocate by filing a vakalatnama. The delay condonation petition of the Appellant is taken up for consideration. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, drawing our attention to paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the instant petition, submits that it came to know about the proceedings of the complaint case and the ex parte order when WA was issued against it in respect of EA No. 86/2014. Ld. Advocate also disputed the postal endorsement, ‘not claimed’ as marked on the notice of complaint case. He further dwells on paragraph 9 of the instant petition and claims that knowledge about the proceedings dawned upon it only on 16-01-2015. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 specifically contends that ‘not claimed’ is a good service and that notice was duly tendered to the OP No. 1, who did not receive the notice. This is a vague application with false plea. There is total parity in the address as mentioned in the cause title of complaint petition vis-à-vis Memo of Appeal as also that of the Bill issued by it. The Appellant is running its business in the same address for long. In absence of day to day explanation of delay, the petition is liable to be rejected. Also, heard the other parties present in the matter. On perusal of the materials on record, we have not come across any such document whereof the Appellant has disputed the ‘not claimed’ remark of the postal authorities; no illicit involvement of the postal peon is also shown. Neither any day to day explanation is there. To sum up, such huge delay of 227 days beyond the statutory period of limitation is not categorically and wholesomely explained in any manner. Accordingly, the petition is fit to be rejected and stands rejected therefore. Consequent thereof, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation. | |
