P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President:
1. This is an application to condone the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal.
2. What is stated in the affidavit of the Advocates clerk of the petitioner is that though the appeal has to be filed before 7.1.2003 and also the papers were entrusted on 6.1.2003 due to heavy work, the appeal could not be filed till 15.1.2003. The period of limitation cannot be extended depending on the work-load on the clerk-cum-typist. Hence this application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Even otherwise there are no merits in the appeal.
3. The opposite parties in C.D. No. 113/2002 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari, Eluru are the appellants.
4. The case of the complainant is that he is the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari who ordered for supply of Gym material with 10 guage standard with specifications mentioned in the quotation from the appellants. But actually what was supplied is 9 guage material which are inferior quality and defective items of Gym articles. Hence he filed the complaint.
5. The District Forum found that there is deficiency in service and accordingly allowed the complaint directing the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 68,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. together with costs of Rs. 500/-.
6. The main objection of the appellants seems to be that at the time of booking the equipment 10 guage was not available and the best alternate material was selected by the complainants representative and after selection the material was dispatched and installed to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency. But there is no proof coming forth from the appellants that any such alternative order was placed or any selection was made by the representative of the complainant. Hence the District Forum rightly found that the supply does not answer the description of the equipment booked which amounts to deficiency in service. We entirely agree with the view taken by the District Forum and we do not find any ground to interfere with the said order of the District Forum.
The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment six weeks.
Appeal dismissed.