B.N. Sinha, President:
1. Â This appeal has been filed by the complainant who is appellant here against the order dated 18th of December, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Sitamarhi dismissing the Case No. 43 of 92 filed by the complainant against the opposite party who is respondent here.
2. For the disposal of this appeal the facts of the case may be noticed with utmost brevity. The complainant filed a case before the District Forum alleging that he got his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. BPK 903 insured by the National Insurance Company Limited, Sitamarhi Branch of which the opposite party is the Branch Manager; that the said Motor Cycle, however, met with an accident on 15.11.91 causing extensive damage for which he filed his claim before the Insurance Company-opposite party on 18th November, 1991; that in spite of repeated reminders the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant and in the meantime the complainant got his motor cycle repaired incurring heavy cost and that under the circumstances the complainant was forced to file this case before the District Forum.
3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed counter version controverting the claim of the complainant mainly on the ground that the motor cycle of the complainant has not met with any accident and the claim of the complainant, therefore, is bogus and is fit to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum, it appears, asked the complainant to produce evidence in support of his claim. But it appears that neither any affidavit nor any oral evidence was produced by the complainant to substantiate his claim. The District Forum in this situation and also taking into consideration that the complainant has not disclosed either the place of the accident or the manner of the accident dismissed the complaint by their impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant. The memo of appeal was presented before this Commission on 1.2.93 i.e., after expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) requires that the memo of appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum has to be presented within thirty days from the date of the impugned order. Of course the appellant has filed an application u/Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules explaining the circumstances under which the memo of appeal could not be presented before this Commission within the period specified u/Sec. 15 of the Act. The appellant was heard in person on this point and it is mentioned in his petition for condonation of delay that his wife was suffering from serious cold and citica and he was engaged in her treatment and therefore the memo of appeal could not be presented within the specified period of thirty days. The ailment of his wife was not so as to prevent the appellant from filing the memo of appeal or to send the same through registered post before this Commission. Hence we hold that there is no valid and sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the memo of appeal within the period specified under the Act. Under the circumstances the prayer for condonation of delay is refused and on this ground alone, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. But on merit also as it is evident from the facts stated above, there appears no merit in the appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.