Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Amerbin S/O Azan Chaus, on 23 July, 2015

                                   1                       F.A.No. :327/2015




                               Date of filing:04.06.2015
                               Date of order:23.07.2015
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

MISC.APPLICATION NO. : 124 OF 2015
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 327 OF 2015
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 327 OF 2015
DISTRICT FORUM : NANDED.

1.   The Executive Engineer,
     Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
     Vidhyut Bhavan, New Mondha,
     Nanded.

2.   Assistant Engineer,
     Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.
     Ardhapur, Tq.Ardhapur,
     Dist. Nanded.

3.   Junior Engineer,
     Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
     Ardhapur Unit NO.1,
     Tq.Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded.                  ...APPELLANTS


VERSUS


Amerbin S/o Azan Chaus,
R/o Ardhapur, Tq.Ardhapur,
Dist.Nanded.                                    ...RESPONDENT.



           Coram :     Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
                       Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.S.N.Tandale for appellants.

ORDER BELOW MISC.APPLICATION NO.124/15 IN F.A. NO.327/2015 ( Delivered on 23th July 2015 ) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. Perused the application under order and also copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version and other documents, so also we heard Mr.S.N.Tandale learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.

2. On perusal of record it manifests that there was 51 days delay in filing appeal. According to Mr.Tandale learned counsel for the applicants, there was such delay on administrative ground only. It is submitted that after receipt of copy of impugned judgment and order on 13.3.2015, applicants were required to obtain permission of their superiors for filing appeal by sending the record to Senior Law Officer at Aurangabad for his opinion and then to the Superintendent Engineer for approval. After receipt of the permission of the competent authority applicants have filed appeal along with this application. Thus according to Mr.Tandale learned counsel for the applicants, there was delay on administrative ground only and not with any malafide intention. On all these grounds it is submitted to condone the delay.

3. True it is that applicants were required to obtain permission of the Superintendent Engineer that too after obtaining legal opinion of the Law Officer. But no explanation is given as to why all these formalities were not completed within the stipulated period of limitation. Even it is not disclosed by applicants as to when the record was sent to Law Officer and thereafter to Superintendent Engineer and when the Superintendent Engineer accorded requisite permission. Therefore in the absence of any 3 F.A.No. :327/2015 specific explanation it is difficult to accept the same. Moreover on perusal of the record we find no legal point involved in the appeal. Thus we find no just and legal ground to condone such inordinate delay of 51 days. If such inordinate delay in the absence of any reasonable explanation is condoned the very object of the legislature would be defeated. Hence we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. M.A.No.124/2015 for condonation of delay is dismissed.

2. Consequently appeal is dismissed.

3. No order as to cost.

4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

   Sd/-                                                 Sd/-
Uma S.Bora                                         S.M.Shembole,
 Member                                        Presiding Judicial Member

Mane