Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Oriental Ins Co.Ltd vs Pankaj Dhirajbhai Patel on 15 November, 2022

                                                       Details      DD   MM     YY
                                                 Date of Judgment   15   11    2022
                                                 Date of filing     01   10    2022
                                                 Duration           14   01      -

            IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                         STATE OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD

                     Misc. Application No.352 of 2022
                                 Court No. 1
       Manager Shree
       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
       Opp. Motipura Bus stand, Above Yamaha Showroom,
       Himmatnagar, Dist: Sabarkantha.                     ... Applicant
                                         Vs.
     1. Panakj Dhirabhai Patel
       Legal heir of deceased Dhirabhai Punjabhai Patel
       Panol, Tal: Idar, Dist: Sabarkantha
     2. Secretary Shree,
        The Panol Group Seva Sahkari Mandli limited
        Panol, Tal: Idar, Dist: Sabarkantha
     3. The Sabarkantha Jilla Madhyastha Sahkari Bank Limited
        Sahkar Vikas Bhavan, Station Road, Himmatnagar,
        Dist: Sabarkantha                               ...Respondents

  CORUM:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
              Hon'ble Ms. A.C.Raval, Member

APPERANCE: Mr.R.P.Raval Learned Advocate for applicant ORDER PER: By Hon'ble Ms. A.C. Raval, Member 15/11/2022.

1. This is an application filed by the applicant under section 41 of Consumer the limitation Act to condone the delay of 26 days.

2. Heard Mr.R.P.Raval, ld. advocate for the applicant.

3. Facts of the application and arguments.

3.1. The applicant had filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents before the CDRF, Sabarkantha @ Himatnagar vide consumer case no. 114 of 2020. The said compliant was partly allowed vide order dated 22.07.2022. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the CDRF Sabarkantha @ Himatnagar in Consumer case no. 114 of 2020, the present applicant want to file an appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He has to file an appeal within 45 days but he could not filed appeal in prescribed time limit but the delay is cause of 26 days in filing the appeal therefore, this delay condonation application is filed.

3.2. It is stated by the applicants as under:

"Para 3: There is a delay of around 26 days on the part of applicant to file the present application for the reason that the d.i.dabhi MA.352.2022 Page 1 of 2 advocate took some time in obtaining the certified copy of the order and the applicant took some time in obtaining the claim file and approval from the Regional Office, and therefore, there is a delay of around 26 days in filling the application.
Para 4: The Regional Office also took some time in obtaining the legal opinion from the advocate who represent the case before the Hon'ble Commission for filing the instant appeal."

3.3 L. A. for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has prima facie case with the substantial question are involved in and applicant is likely to be succeeded. That if delay is not condoned, applicant has to suffer huge loss and he will not get justice.

4. Notice was issued to the opponent on 04.10.2022. None appeared for the opponent.

5. Merits of the case: This court has considered following aspects.

(A) That the applicant has submitted that they have prima facie case and they are likely to succeeded.

(B) It is also submitted that the substantial questions are involved, delay is required to be condone for cause of justice. (C) This commission has also considered the ratio laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of India in case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 = 2013 (6) Supreme 545 and ratio laid down by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) Supp.1 SCR 403.

(D) The objections regarding merits of the case will be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing of appeal.

6. This commission has considered the facts of the application, written objection of the opponent, arguments of advocate of both the Parties, facts and circumstances of the case and find that the applicant has sufficient cause for not file the appeal within prescribed time limit. At the same time, the opponent is required to be compensated with cost. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay. Following order is therefore passed.


                                       O R D E R

        A)       Application is allowed.

B) Registry is directed to register the appeal and place it for admission hearing on 01.12.2022.

Pronounced on this 15 day of November 2022.



       [Ms. A.C.Raval]                                   [Hon'ble Justice Mr. V.P. Patel]
           Member                                              President




d.i.dabhi                                  MA.352.2022                        Page 2 of 2