Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/10/583

RAJA VISHINDAS RAMCHANDANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

11 Dec 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/10/583
 
1. RAJA VISHINDAS RAMCHANDANI
402 SAI RACHANA APT OPP SADHUBELA HIGH SCHOOL ULHASNAGAR THANE
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. TATA MOTORS LTD
SUMAN NAGAR RAKALA COMOLEX V N PUNAM MARG CHEMBUR MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Applicant/Appellant in person
......for the Appellant
 
Adv. Ashutosh Marathe for the Non-Applicant/Respondent
......for the Respondent
ORDER

ORAL ORDER

 

Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

 

          Applicant/Appellant in person is present.  Adv. Ashutosh Marathe is present on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent.  He files his Vakalatnama.  It is taken on the record.  He also files a reply opposing the delay condonation application.

 

[2]     Heard both parties on the application for condonation of delay.  Perused the record.

 

[3]     There is an alleged delay of 46 days in filing Appeal No.1066 of 2010 and hence this application for condonation of delay is filed.  Application for condonation of delay is vehemently opposed by the Non-Applicant/Respondent.

 

[4]     This appeal takes an exception to the dismissal of Consumer Complaint No.408 of 2006, Raja Veshindas Ramchandani Vs.  Tata Motors Ltd., by an order dated 9/7/2010 passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity).  It is a grievance about sale of vehicle which was attached and repossessed by a financial institution.  Consumer complaint stood dismissed holding that the Applicant/Appellant failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the financial institution.  Challenging the said order this appeal is preferred alongwith an application for condonation of delay, supra.  Reason mentioned explaining the delay is that the Applicant/Appellant was suffering from diabetes and, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time.  Application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit filed by the Applicant/Appellant.  Diabetes is a condition which is self-experienced.  Considering short period of delay, we find that the delay is not intentional and no malafides could be attributed to the Applicant/Appellant and the delay is satisfactorily explained.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

Miscellaneous Application No.583 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.1066 of 2010 is hereby allowed.  Consequently delay in filing appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `1,000/- to be paid by the Applicant/Appellant to the Non-Applicant/Respondent within a period of thirty days from today (since the order is passed in presence of both the parties).

 

 

Pronounced and dictated on 11th December, 2012

 

 
 
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde]
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.