Mr. Chandrakant Vakharia Vs. Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd., Mumbai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111318
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnJul-13-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.72 of 2009 @ Misc.Application Nos.114 of 2009-Delay, 115 of 2009-Stay (Consumer Complaint No.549 of 2001)
JudgeMr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member. Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member.
AppellantMr. Chandrakant Vakharia
RespondentBombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd., Mumbai
Excerpt:
oral order:- per mr. s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member: none present for the appellant. perused the record, particularly the application for condonation of delay. there is delay of 151 days in filing the appeal. the reason given is one line statement stating that the appellant had not received the copy of award, which was posted to him on 11/09/2008. the reason given is quite unsatisfactory, since the delay of 151 days is not sufficiently explained. the record shows that proceedings before the forum below was prosecuted diligently by the appellant. he was aware of the date on which the award passed and was posted to him. considering over all circumstances, his bear statement that he had not received the copy of the award passed does not inspire confidence. delay is not satisfactorily explained. the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. we hold accordingly, and pass the following order:- order: 1. misc.application no.114/2009 for condonation for delay stands dismissed. 2. as such, the appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. no order as to costs. 4. copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Oral Order:-

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:

None present for the appellant.

Perused the record, particularly the application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 151 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is one line statement stating that the appellant had not received the copy of award, which was posted to him on 11/09/2008. The reason given is quite unsatisfactory, since the delay of 151 days is not sufficiently explained. The record shows that proceedings before the Forum below was prosecuted diligently by the appellant. He was aware of the date on which the award passed and was posted to him. Considering over all circumstances, his bear statement that he had not received the copy of the award passed does not inspire confidence. Delay is not satisfactorily explained. The application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly, and pass the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc.Application No.114/2009 for condonation for delay stands dismissed.

2. As such, the appeal does not survive for consideration.

3. No order as to costs.

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