State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman, Mcd vs Sh. Nanga Ram on 6 November, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 06.11.2009 Appeal No. FA-09/339 (Arising out of Order dated 14-11-2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum(III), 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Case No. 539/2008) The Chairman, MCD Appellant Delhi Safai Karamchari Through Co-operative T.C. Society, Mr. Raman Mishra, WZ-134, Mandir Wali Gali, Advocate Shadipur, New Delhi. Versus 1. Sh. Nanga Ram Respondent-1 S/o Sh. Nanha Ram 2. Smt. Shakuntla Respondent-2 W/o Sh. Nanga Ram R/o Jhuggi No. W-06/R/013, Block-E, Munshi Bagh, New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Mr. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi(Oral)
1. The District Forum-III, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 539/08 filed by the complainants Sh. Nanga Ram and Smt. Shakuntla against the appellant-OP, vide order dated 14.11.08 has directed the OP-Cooperative Society to supply the status of accounts to the complainants and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to each of them.
2. The OP appellant has therefore come in appeal before this Commission.
3. Since the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay.
4. We have heard Sh. Raman Mishra, counsel for the appellant on this application.
5. His contention is that the proceedings in the complaint were exparte against the OP and therefore the appellant had no knowledge of those proceedings. He came to know about the order for the first time, when the Police went to him with a warrant against him. He thereafter applied for a certified copy of the order which was obtained on or about 30.04.09 and the appeal was filed. He submitted that there is nothing to show and suggest that the appellant has been negligent in filing the appeal.
6. We do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel.
7. The appellant has not disclosed in his application on which date the Police went to him with the warrant and when he had applied for the certified copy. The order was passed on 14.11.08 and the appeal was preferred on 13.05.09. The appellant has not given even his affidavit in support of this delay condonation application. No reasonable explanation has therefore comeforth to explain the delay involved in filing the appeal. The application is therefore dismissed with the result the appeal being not maintainable by the bar of the delay is therefore dismissed.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
10. Announced on 6th day of November, 2009.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member ysc