Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Vs. Santosh Balasaheb Olekar (Deceased) and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111217
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnAug-13-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.640 of 2009 @ Misc.Appl.Nos. 647 of 2009 & 648 of 2009 (In Consumer Complaint No.755 of 2007)
JudgeShri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member
AppellantShri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
RespondentSantosh Balasaheb Olekar (Deceased) and Another
Excerpt:
oral order:- per shri p.n. kashalkar, honble presiding judicial member none present for the appellant. by filing this appeal, appellant is seeking quashing of judgment/order passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum sangli. we are not going into merit of this appeal since appeal can be disposed of only on the ground of delay in filing this appeal. complaint no.755/2007 was decided by the district consumer disputes redressal forum sangli on 20/12/2007 and the appeal is filed very belatedly after 438 days. misc. application no.647/2009 filed seeking condonation of delay cannot satisfy us the just and sufficient cause to condone the delay. delay is more than one year and cannot be condoned very lightly. strong and sufficient grounds are required to be set out to seek condonation of delay. grounds given are not sufficient to induce us to condone the delay. as such, we are not inclined to condone the enormous delay caused in filing this appeal. misc. application no.647/2009 for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. hence, the following order:- order: 1. misc. appl. no.647/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. misc. appl. no.648/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous. 4. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Oral Order:-

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

None present for the appellant.

By filing this appeal, appellant is seeking quashing of judgment/order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangli. We are not going into merit of this appeal since appeal can be disposed of only on the ground of delay in filing this appeal.

Complaint No.755/2007 was decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangli on 20/12/2007 and the appeal is filed very belatedly after 438 days. Misc. application No.647/2009 filed seeking condonation of delay cannot satisfy us the just and sufficient cause to condone the delay. Delay is more than one year and cannot be condoned very lightly. Strong and sufficient grounds are required to be set out to seek condonation of delay. Grounds given are not sufficient to induce us to condone the delay. As such, we are not inclined to condone the enormous delay caused in filing this appeal. Misc. Application No.647/2009 for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc. Appl. No.647/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2. Appeal does not survive for consideration.

3. Misc. Appl. No.648/2009, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

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