State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area ... vs Shri Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat on 12 February, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5th Floor, Administrative Building No. 1 ,Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 First Appeal No. FA/12/248 (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/10/2011 in Case No. cc/11/14 of District Nagpur) 1. The Chief Officer Nagpur housing & Area Development Board Civil lines Nagpur Civil lines Nagpur Nagpur 2. Chief Engineer Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority Gruhanirman Bhavan Bandra (East) Mumbai- 51 ...........Appellant(s) Versus Shri Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat R/o 53 Jaibhim Co-op Housing Society Nagpur ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole Presiding Member Hon'ble Mr.N. Arumugam Member PRESENT: Hitesh Verma , Advocate for the Appellants None for the Respondent ORDER
(Passed on 12.02.2013) Order below Delay Condonation Application bearing No. MA/12/38 Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 77 days which was caused in filing the appeal against the judgement & order dtd.17.10.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/11/14.
2. We heard Mr Hitesh Verma, counsel for the applicants / appellants, perused the application under order and copy of impugned judgement & order. However, as the non-applicant / respondent is proceeded exparte, we have had no opportunity to hear him.
3. Adv.
Mr Verma submitted that there was such delay of 77 days on administrative ground only. According to him the appellants were required to obtain approval of their higher authority and also from State Government for filing the appeal. It is submitted that the case papers were required to send to the legal section for obtaining opinion and then to the different authorities at Mumbai and therefore, there was delay in getting approval, etc. It is further submitted that there is legal point involved in this appeal and it is just & reasonable ground to condone the delay and accordingly, it is submitted to condone the delay.
4. True it is that, the applicants were required to obtain approval of their higher authorities and also from State Government therefore the case papers required to send to the legal department and thereafter by obtaining legal opinion from them to different authorities at Mumbai. However, when the prescribed limitation period is given by the Statute for filing the appeal, applicants should have obtained the necessary approval within the stipulated period of limitation. Thought the applicants were required to send the case papers to the different authorities for getting approval, in our view, there could be no difficulty to send the case papers within the stipulated period of limitation to the different departments or authorities. When now a days there are so may communication facilities available, there could be no difficulty for the applicants to send the case papers from one department to another department immediately. Therefore, we find no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay of 77 days. If such inordinate delay is condoned in the absence of any just & reasonable ground, the very object of legislature would be defeated.
5. Hence, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order:-
ORDER i. This Delay Condonation Application stands dismissed.
ii. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.FA/12/248 is dismissed.
iii. No order as to cost.
iv. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
[ S. M. SHEMBOLE ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj