State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cox & King(India) Pvt Ltd, vs Shri Vijay Baburaoji Chandawar, on 1 March, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. A/10/337
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 20/10/2009 in Case No. cc/09/154 of District Forum, Nagpur)
Cox & King( India) Pvt
Ltd,
Through Branch Manager, Pushpakunj
Commercial Complex, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Shri Vijay Baburaoji
Chandawar,
R/o. Bazaar Ward, Chandrapur.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Mr. Sathyanathan
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. Pandhare
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 01/03/2013) Below Misc. Application No. MA/10/284 for Delay Condonation Application Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 135 days, which was caused in preferring the appeal against the judgment & order dated 20/10/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. CC/09/154.
2. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the application under order and the copy of impugned judgment & order.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Sathyanathan, Ld. Counsel for the applicant / appellant that there was such delay on administrative ground only. According to him after receipt of copy of impugned judgment & order, the applicant/appellant was required to get the copies translated into English and thereafter, the case papers were required to send to its Head Office, Mumbai for approval and sanction, etc. It is further submitted that there is legal point involved in the appeal and therefore, it is just & necessary to condone the delay. Accordingly, it is submitted to condone the delay.
4. Per contra, Mr S N Pandhare, appearing for the non-applicant / respondent submitted that there is no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay of 135 days. It is submitted to dismiss the application.
5. True it is that the applicant is being a corporate body was required to get approval of its Head Office for filing the appeal by sending the case papers from Nagpur to Mumbai Head Office, as submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant so also required to get copies of documents as well as impugned judgment and order translated into English, etc. But, in our view there could be no reason for such inordinate delay of 135 days for completing such formalities. If the applicant/appellant was interested in filing the appeal in time, in our view, it could have filed the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation by getting the formalities completed. Mr. Sathyanathan, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant tried to support of this contention by relying on the decision of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Dhand, reported in III (1996) CPJ 486. But this decision of Punjab State Commission can not be applicable to the present case as the Punjab State Commission condoned the delay as there was delay for few days only.
6. Further, Adv. Mr. Sathyanathan appearing for the applicant/appellant tried to support of his contention by relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Ashishkant Prabookant Sen & Ors. Vs. Shri Jagoba S/o Dashrath Jibhkate & Ors. Reported in 2010 (1) All MR 139 in which his Lordship of Bombay High Court condoned the delay of 6 & 1/2 months holding that the delay is satisfactory explained but with due respect of this authority of Bombay High Court, can not be applicable to the present case as it was the case U/s 5 of Civil P.C. whereas the present case is being under the Consumer Protection Act which provides summary procedure, such inordinate delay cannot be condoned. If such inordinate delay is condoned the very object of legislature would be defeated. Therefore, though there is legal point involved in the matter such inordinate delay cannot be condoned. Hence, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order.
ORDER i.
Misc. Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
ii.
Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/10/337 is dismissed.
iii.
No order as to cost.
Dated:- 01/03/2013.
[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER ay