State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co ... on 27 November, 2012
A-218-2012-MA-125-2012
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Miscellaneous
Application No. MA/12/125 a/w A/12/218
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 26/04/2010 in Case No. 707/2008 of District Kolhapur)
1.SANJAY SIDGONDA PATIL SHANTINAGAR MEDICALS CHAVAN COMPLEX NR SHIVAJI PETROL PUMP AMBEDKAR ROAD SANGLI MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ASHIRWAD 1241, E WARD, SHAHU MILL ROAD, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA
2. M/S S. S. MIRAJE & CO 1243/56 UDHAM CHAMBERS, RAJARAM ROAD, KOLHAPUR
- 416008 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Ms.Archana Pise, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr.Sanjay Krishnan, Advocate for the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1.
Mr.Umesh Mangave, Advocate for the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.2.
O R D E R Per Mr.S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
This is an Application filed to get condoned the delay of 13 days in filing this appeal.
Heard both sides.
It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant that he obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 26/04/2010 and on 12/05/2010 and thereafter in the month of 20th May, 2010, he was suffering from back bone problem and thus there is delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. This statement is seriously objected by the Non-Applicants stating that real delay is not calculated and delay was almost one year in filing this appeal. We find that certified copy obtained by the Applicant/Appellant mentions the remark Dubar copy. It does not mention any endorsement as to when first copy was given to the Applicant/Appellant. Copy is expected to be given in the due course of time after the order was passed by the Forum and which ought to have been received by the Applicant/Appellant. Accordingly there is no statement made about the receipt of the first copy. Limitation would start from the date when that copy is received. Obviously, the delay is not at all properly explained. Hence, we find the explanation offered cannot be held as satisfactory one. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:
O R D E R Misc.Application No.125/2012 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Consequently, Appeal No.218/2012 does not survive for consideration.
Pronounced on 27th November, 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [HON'BLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep