Skip to content


The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Hasina Haroon Jogia Laxman Jetha Chawl, Mumbai and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal No.1176 of 1999 (In Consumer Complaint No. 68 of 1995)

Judge

Appellant

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Respondent

Hasina Haroon Jogia Laxman Jetha Chawl, Mumbai and Another

Advocates:

Mr. Ganesh Shirke, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Excerpt:


oral order:- per shri s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member appellant and respondent no.1 absent despite of notice sent to them under certificate of posting. respondent no.2/shri shambhubhai vora present through advocate mr.ganesh shirke. there is delay of 87 days in filing appeal. therefore, application for condonation is also made. perused the record. as per statement made in the application for condonation of delay, appellant has received copy of the impugned order/award dated 13/07/1998, on 03/02/1999. it is alleged that thereafter, matter was allotted to the advocate (name not mentioned) and after receipt of advice on 25/05/1999 matter was further processed to file this appeal, which was actually filed on 28/06/1999. thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing appeal and the delay according to us is not satisfactorily explained. hence, application for condonation of delay stands rejected and consequently, appeal is not entertainable. hence, the following order:- order:- 1. application for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. consequently, appeal is not entertainable. 3. no order as to costs. 4. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Judgment:


Oral Order:-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

Appellant and respondent No.1 absent despite of notice sent to them Under Certificate of Posting. Respondent No.2/Shri Shambhubhai Vora present through Advocate Mr.Ganesh Shirke.

There is delay of 87 days in filing appeal. Therefore, application for condonation is also made. Perused the record.

As per statement made in the application for condonation of delay, appellant has received copy of the impugned order/award dated 13/07/1998, on 03/02/1999. It is alleged that thereafter, matter was allotted to the Advocate (name not mentioned) and after receipt of advice on 25/05/1999 matter was further processed to file this appeal, which was actually filed on 28/06/1999. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing appeal and the delay according to us is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, application for condonation of delay stands rejected and consequently, appeal is not entertainable. Hence, the following order:-

Order:-

1. Application for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2. Consequently, appeal is not entertainable.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //