The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionUnion Territory,Chandigarh ,Plot No 5-B, Sector No 19B,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 019
FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 of 2011
1. A.S.Anandson of late Sh. Tek Chand, resident of H.No. 833, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana)
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Udai Veer Guptason of Sh. late Shri Tilak Ram, aged about 56 years, resident of House No. 332, (First Floor), Sector 12-A, Panchkula (Haryana)2. Bala Ji Car Pointthrough its Partner/Proprietor, Shri S.K. Sood, SCO No. 10, 2nd Floor, Cabin No. 26, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh U.T.3. Bala Ji Car Pointthrough its Partner/Proprietor, Shri Kamal Vishal, SCO No. 10, 2nd Floor, Cabin No. 26, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh U.T.4. Carters Financial Services Private Limited(Franchisee of ICICI Bank Limited), through its Managing Director/Manager, SCO No. 12, 2nd Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh U.T.
...........Respondent(s)
For the Appellant :
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv. for appellant, Advocate for
For the Respondent :
Dated : 31 Mar 2011
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
1.This is an appeal filed by the OP No.5 against order dated 5.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in Complaint Case No.625 of 2008. Sh.A.S.Anand, OP No.5 has filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, without mentioning the specific period of delay. However, from the report of the office, it is evident that there is a delay of more than two years in filing this appeal.
2.Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, it is categorically stated in the application for condonation of delay that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but it is due to the reason that the appellant, who is 84 years old and is confined to bed since March, 2009 on account of spinal injury and old age ailments and as such could not file the appeal in time.
3.We have heard Sh.Ravi Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the contents of the application for condonation of delay.
4.The appeal was required to be filed within 30 days, from the date of order U/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, there is a delay of more than 2 years in filing the appeal and, as such, it is hopelessly time barred. Moreover, in the absence of any document/proof regarding the ailment, the contention of the applicant/appellant cannot be believed. Therefore, in the absence of any sufficient cause, for filing the appeal after more than two years, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed being barred by time.
5.Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
31st March, 2011
HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT
,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
