Delhi

StateCommission

A/1121/2014

DEEPAK NANGIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINEET NOTANI - Opp.Party(s)

I.S. ARORA

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:17.02.2016

Appeal No.1121/14

 

(Arising out of the order dated 10.06.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.156/2013 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-Central, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Deepak Nagia

S/o Late Sh. Ved Parkash,

R/o D-179, 3^rd Floor,

Pitam Pura,

Delhi-110034.                                                                 …..........Appellant

 

Versus

1. Sh. Vineet Notani,

C/o M/s.Notas Holidays ,

15A/1, Shop No.6,

Prestige Chamber,

WEA Saraswati Marg,

Karol Bagh,

•  

 

 

2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

1, DLF Industrial Plot, Moti Nagar,

Delhi-110015.                                                          ........Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2014 passed by District Forum-Central vide which the complaint was dismissed.  The appeal has been filed on 06.12.2014.  Alongwith appeal, the appellant moved an application for condonation of delay.  The application does not disclose the period of delay. The only ground mentioned for condonation is that appellant was not in India from the date of order passed by District Forum, this Commission was also informed by the counsel for appellant. It is not clear as to how and when this Commission was informed.

 

2. Anyhow, the copy of passport of the appellant containing Visa shows that he reached UAE on 23.10.2014 and returned on 02.11.2014.  This does not cover the period from 01.07.2014 / the date of dispatch of the order till 23.10.2014.

 

3. Faced with this situation, the counsel for appellant submitted that appellant did not receive the copy of the order.  First of all, this plea has not been taken in application for condonation of delay.  Secondly, the copy of order filed by appellant alongwith appeal is original copy dispatched by the District Forum.  It contains Sl. No.1409 and date 01.07.2014 in original and address of the appellant. If the appellant did not receive the copy, how  the same has been filed.

 

4. We do not find any sufficient ground for condonation of delay.  The application is dismissed.  With this, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

 

5. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                    (S. C. Jain)

      Member​