Skip to content


Sau.Banubee Issak Beg, Ponda, Goa Vs. Shri Lenny Bastanev Farnandis, Sindhudurga - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal No.79 of 2009 @ Misc.Application Nos.122 of 2009 -Delay 123 of 2009 -Stay (Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2006)

Judge

Appellant

Sau.Banubee Issak Beg, Ponda, Goa

Respondent

Shri Lenny Bastanev Farnandis, Sindhudurga

Advocates:

Adv. Mr. Prabhu for the Appellant. Respondent in Person.

Excerpt:


.....advocate and informed him about the passage of order. advocate advised him to file appeal before this commission. appellant did not know any advocate from mumbai and therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. considering, these averments, we are of the view that delay is not at all satisfactorily explained. these circumstances certainly did not afford any sufficient reason or cause to condone the inordinate delay. therefore, we hold accordingly and reject the application for condonation of delay. misc.application no. 122/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. consequently, the appeal in view of section 24(a) of consumer protection act, 1986, being time barred, not entertained. in the result, we pass the following order:- order: 1. misc.application no.122/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. appeal stands disposed off as could not be entrained as barred by limitation. 3. no order as to costs. 4. misc.application nos.123/2009 for stay stands disposed of. 5. copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

Judgment:


Per Smt. S.P. Lale Honble Member:-

This appeal is directed against the order dated 29/02/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.49/2006, whereby the Forum below directed the opposite party to pay Rs.88,980/- to the complainant and transfer the Tata Sumo car in the name of complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Forum below further directed to opposite party to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards the cost to the complainant. Being disaggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.

We heard Adv. Mr. Prabhu for the appellant and respondent, who is present in person.

There is delay of 220 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. The inordinate delay is explained in para 4 of the application for condonation of delay. It is stated in para 4 of the application that the applicant received the copy of the judgement on 13th May, 2008 at his Goa address. However, applicants Advocate was on summer vacation and he could not contact his Advocate at Sawantwadi. Thereafter, on completion of summer vacation on 8th June, he met his Advocate and informed him about the passage of order. Advocate advised him to file appeal before this Commission. Appellant did not know any Advocate from Mumbai and therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. Considering, these averments, we are of the view that delay is not at all satisfactorily explained. These circumstances certainly did not afford any sufficient reason or cause to condone the inordinate delay. Therefore, we hold accordingly and reject the application for condonation of delay.

Misc.Application No. 122/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

Consequently, the appeal in view of Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being time barred, not entertained.

In the result, we pass the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc.Application No.122/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2. Appeal stands disposed off as could not be entrained as barred by limitation.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Misc.Application Nos.123/2009 for Stay stands disposed of.

5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.




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