Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/70

MR HEMAL ASHOK GANATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DIV MAN, THE ORIENTAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

M GANDABHIR

24 Nov 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/70
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/08/2009 in Case No. 446/2009 of District Mumbai(Suburban))
1. MR HEMAL ASHOK GANATRA 35, ABHECHAND GANDHI MARG VADGADI MUMBAI Maharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. THE DIV MAN, THE ORIENTAL MANAGER SHRIPAL COMPLEX GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI Maharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :M GANDABHIR , Advocate for the Appellant 1

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.

ORDER

Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:-

          We heard Adv.Mr.Gandbhir for appellant.

          There is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal.  In fact, the delay is far more than what has been mentioned in this appeal.  First copy of the order passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban was dispatched to the complainant on 28/10/2009 but the appellant did not receive the same and therefore,  sent three letters and thereafter, second copy was delivered to him on 15/12/2009 and thereafter, within 30 days he had not filed the appeal.

          Thereafter, he filed the appeal on 15/01/2010.  That apart we are finding that the appellant must have received first copy sent by District Consumer Redressal Forum somewhere in first week of November, 2009 and therefore, filed appeal on 15/01/2010 is much after 30 days period.  The applicant has not explained the delay properly.  He is banking on second copy.  If he is banking on second copy which he applied and received on 15/12/2009, then this application for condonation of delay is rendered redundant but since he has filed the appeal on 15/01/2010, we hold that he has received first copy in the first week of November, 2009 and he filed appeal on 15/01/2010 i.e. after 70 days and not within 30 days as he has claimed in application for condonation of delay.  There is no merit in the application for  condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 

That apart we have also examined the impugned order on merit.  The complainant has filed consumer complaint against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of flood insurance claim which he has preferred after car was damaged in flood of 26/07/2005.  The repudiation letter sent by insurance company is dated 17/01/2006 whereas he filed consumer complaint as late as on in the year 2009.  It is hopelessly time bared.  Forum below therefore was justified in rejecting the complaint at the stage of admission itself.  We are finding that there is no merit in the appeal and District Consumer Redressal Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.  In the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the appeal filed by the appellant is without any substance.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

                                                :-ORDER-:

1.                 Appeal stands rejected.

2.                 Parties are left to bear their own costs.

3.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules in force.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 24 November 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member