West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/389/2010

M/S Sitaram Mall. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay.

28 Oct 2010

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
BHABANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027
 
FA No: 389 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/08/2009 in Case No. 392/2006 of District Kolkata-II)
 
1. M/S Sitaram Mall.
Partnership firm by its Partners Namely Kamal Kishore Mall & Sitaram Mall, 12, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700071.PS. Shakespeare Sarani.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Kolkata Divisional office-510100, 8, Chittaranjan Avenue, Barrick Bhawan (4th floor) PS. Bowbazar, Kolkata- 700072.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER Member
 HON'BLE MR. SHANKAR COARI Member
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay., Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Koyli Mukhopadhyay., Advocate
ORDER

No. 3/28.10.2010.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

 

Appellant through Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. N. R. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate are present. 

 

This is an application for condonation of delay of about 304 days in filing this appeal before the State Commission.

 

The impugned order was passed on 17.08.2009.  The Petitioner as contended could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as it was in pecuniary difficulty.  However, money was arranged for as stated in the above application, some time in the month of October, 2009 after Puja vacation.  Thereafter the Petitioner approached the Ld. Advocate for filing appeal in the 3rd week of December, 2009.  No explanation has been given in the above application as to why the Petitioner waited till 3rd week of December, 2009 for meeting the Ld. Advocate for filing the above appeal after money was arranged for after Puja vacation.  The appeal was thereafter prepared on 15.02.2010 and the same was ultimately filed on 14.07.2010.  It has been stated in the above application that the Ld. Advocate due to his serious heart ailment and other illness became confined to bed till 25.03.2010.  Interestingly no document relating to the aforesaid illness of the Ld. Advocate has been produced along with this application.  It further appears that the Appellant knowing fully well that the appeal has become time barred in the meantime went to China without making any arrangement for filing of the above appeal after the said Ld. Advocate became fit to resume his normal work.  The Appellant came back on 2nd July and thereafter filed the above appeal on 14.07.2010.  The above facts and circumstances speak loud about the negligence and laches on the part of the Appellant in preferring the above appeal.  We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in filing the above appeal before the State Commission.  The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.  The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed being barred by limitation.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]
Member
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHANKAR COARI]
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.