Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/821

SUNIL RAUT - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SAGAR TALEKAR

07 Oct 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/821
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/05/2009 in Case No. 52/2009 of District Raigarh)
 
1. SUNIL RAUT
R/AT PALI TAL SUDHAGAD 410205
RAIGAD
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
OFF AT ALIBAUG
RAIGAD
MAHARASHTRA
2. THE SUDHAKAR SAWANT CO URBAN BANK,
PALI TAL SUDHAGAD,
RAIGAD
MAHARASHTRA
3.
4.
5.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:SAGAR TALEKAR , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
ORDER

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

 

          Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.  There is delay of 1217 days to file the appeal.  The appellant is trying to explain the delay stating that after the impugned order was passed on 29.5.2009, he had sufficient funds to engage a lawyer and to file an appeal.  He also pleaded his ignorance about the period of limitation.  After arranging for funds, when he approached the lawyer, he was informed about the delay in filing the appeal. On the advice of the lawyer, he obtained certified copy of the impugned order which he received on 29.5.2009 and thereafter, this appeal alongwith delay condonation application was filed on 5.10.2010.  It is also mentioned that after receiving certified copy of the impugned order in the month of February-March, unfortunately, he had to face  some problem at home and therefore, he was not in a position to hand over certified copy to his lawyer and therefore, it contributed to the delay in filing appeal.

          From the statements made by the applicant/appellant, it could be seen that  he had received free certified copy of the impugned order on or about 02.06.2009.  The reasons mentioned are not only vague but quite unsatisfactory. Besides this it is revealed from the circumstances mentioned, that appellant gave priority to repay loan instead of giving any thought of filing the appeal.  Apart from the contents of the impugned order, it could be seen that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kandimala Raghavaiah & Co. V/s National Insurance Co. III(2009) CPJ 75 (SC), the original complaint filed was time barred and therefore, ultimately came to be dismissed.  Under the circumstances and the reasons stated above, we find the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :

          Application for delay condonation stands dismissed.   Since delay condonation application dismissed, the appeal is not entertained as time barred.

          In the given circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

 

 

 
 
[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.