State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sas Motors Ltd vs Sanjay Shrikrushna Dhanorkar on 8 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR 5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01 Misc. Application No. MA/09/467 (In Appeal No.A/09/446 arising out of Order dtd.26.06.2009 in Complaint No. CC/08/193 of District Forum, Akola) SAS Motors Ltd Office at 117-A Defence Enclave Sainik Farm, New Delhi- 110 062 Works at B-14-20, Baramati Co-operative Industrial Estate, Baramati- 414 102 Dist. Pune Through its authorised signatory Shri Ajay S/o Murlidhar Gangapurkar R/o Industrial Estate Bhigwan Road, Baramati Dist. Pune Versus 1. Sanjay Shrikrushna Dhanorkar R/o Kasarkhed, Balapur, Dist. Akola 2. Shri Sandeep Satyanarayan Kacholiya Proprietor Aishwarya Motors Geeta Nagar, National Highway No.6 By-pass Road, Akola. BEFORE: Honble Mr S. M. Shembole, Presiding Member Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal, Member Hon'ble Mr N. Arumugam, Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr Shams ..for the Appellant Adv. Mrs K R Kulkarni .....for Respondent No.1 None .....for Respondent No.2 ORDER
(Passed on 08.10.2012) Below Misc. Application bearing No.MA/09/467 for Condonation of Delay in Appeal No.A/09/446 Per Mr S. M. Shembole, Honble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of 69 days delay which was caused in preferring the appeal against the judgement & order dtd.26.02.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Akola in Consumer Complaint No. CC/08/193.
2. We heard Ld. Counsel for the applicants / appellants and Non-applicant No.1 / respondent No.1, perused the application under order and copy of impugned judgement & order.
3. Undisputedly, there was 69 days delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that by Adv. Mr Shams for the applicants that after receiving the copy of judgement & order on 06.03.2009 the copy was sent to the Director of the applicant at Baramati but due to financial year ending work the appellant could not take any step to prefer the appeal in time. Thereafter, in the last week of April 2009 the Director of the applicants discussed with its officer, who was entrusted the work of Court matters and thereafter telephonically discussed the matter with Advocate at Akola and thereafter with Adv. Mr Shams of Nagpur.
However, as Adv. Mr Shams was out of station till 25.05.2009 the applicants could not file the appeal in time. There was also a summer vacation. After the summer vacation applicants have filed the appeal on 12.06.2009 alongwith application for condonation of delay.
Thus it is submitted that there was such delay on administrative ground only. It is further submitted by Adv Mr Shams for the applicants that that there is legal point involved in this appeal. Therefore, it is just & necessary to condone the delay.
4. Per contra Adv. Smt K R Kulakarni Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant No.1 / respondent No.1 submitted that there is no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay. She has submitted that though applicants were busy in financial year ending work, they could have filed the appeal after year ending i.e. after 31st March 2009 or thereafter within the reasonable period.
5. Further she submitted that though Adv. Mr Shams for the applicants was out of station it cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. It is submitted to dismiss the application.
6. True it is that the officer of the applicants were busy in financial year ending work till the end of March 2009. Since filing of appeal is one of the part of their official duty, they could have processed for filing the same immediately after the receipt of copy of impugned judgement & order. Merely because the officers of the applicants were busy in financial year ending work cannot be a ground for condonation of delay.
7. Moreover, even if it is presumed that due to financial year ending workload the officers of the applicants could not file the appeal 05.04.2009 but till the middle of April 2009 they could have filed the appeal within the reasonable period though the case papers were required to be sent to Baramati from Akola then to Nagpur. Considering the present available communication facilities, in our view, there could be no such delay on the ground of sending the case papers from one place to another. Therefore, in our view, in any case the applicants could have filed the appeal before starting the summer vacation.
8. However, though Adv. Mr Shams was not available till 25.05.2009, undisputedly, he was available at the end of May 2009. Therefore, the same ground also cannot be considered.
9. Any how, we find no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay. If such inordinate delay is condoned the very object of legislature would be defeated.
Hence, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order:-
ORDER i. The Misc. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
ii. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/09/446 is dismissed.
iii. No order as to cost.
iv. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
[ S. M. SHEMBOLE ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM ] MEMBER sj