State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sk. Ismail & Anr. vs The Divisional Manager, The Oriental ... on 24 March, 2010
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027 FA No: 472 Of 2009 (Arisen out of order dated 07/05/2009 in Case No 110/2009 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore)
1. Sk. Ismail.
Prop. of Ghister Shoe, 44/1, R.L. Ghosh Road. PO & PS. Budge Budge. Kolkata- 137., Prop. of Ghister Shoe, 44/1, R.L. Ghosh Road. PO & PS. Budge Budge. Kolkata- 137.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager, Cooch Behar, Cooch Behar, West Bengal., represented by its Branch Manager, Cooch Behar, Cooch Behar, West Bengal.
....Appellant Versus
1. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office-VI, 45C, Chowringhee Road. Kolkata- 700071. , Divisional Office-VI, 45C, Chowringhee Road. Kolkata- 700071.
2. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance company Ltd.
City Branch No. 1, Office Code-311603, 496, Diamond Harbour Road. Kolkata- 700034. , City Branch No. 1, Office Code-311603, 496, Diamond Harbour Road. Kolkata- 700034.
....Respondent BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI , PRESIDENT MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER , Member PRESENT:
Sk. Borhanuddin., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. Prasanta Banerjee. , Advocate for the Respondent 1 *JUDGEMENT/ORDER No. 7/24.03.2010.
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.
This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the D.C.D.R.F. South 24 Pgs. in CC No. 110 of 09. It has been stated that the a revision petition was moved before the State Commission challenging the said order and the same was allowed to be withdrawn as appeal was maintainable against the said order. Such disposal of the State Commission was on 24.08.2009. It is stated by the Petitioner he applied for certified copy of the order impugned and ultimately filed an appeal on 08.12.2009. The delay has been enxplained that on and from 28.04.2009 Ramzan Month was started which is pious month for the Muslim community and the Petitioner observed fasting as usual but he had to undergo various ailments arising out of said fasting and he was under treatment of a local doctor and he was suffering till 24.11.2009 from 25.08.2009. It is apparent that the long period has not been explained properly except making vague statement of some ailments for a long period of three months and intervention of Puja vacation. As this Commission has only 5 days Puja vacation such period is not explained properly by such vague statement and, therefore, the application is dismissed. Appeal also stands dismissed accordingly.
Pronounced Dated the 24 March 2010 [HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI] PRESIDENT [MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER] Member