Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Jivan Lal Dhiwar vs Vinod Kumar Soni 6 Mcc/479/2019 Suresh ... on 17 June, 2019
However, as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (supra), this should be seen whether any fruitful purpose would be served even if the delay is condoned and whether delay in filing the complaint and delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned. For this, the case of the complainant is to be examined on merits also. The complainant is claiming 50% of the insurance amount due to his disability. From the schedule given in the insurance policy, 50% is allowed only when there is loss of hearing - both ears and it is 15% for loss of hearing - one ear. It is the case of the complainant that he has loss of 90% in one ear and 10% in other ear. In fact in the certificate issued by the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences the following has been mentioned:-
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs M/S Gruhashilp Constructions on 10 May, 2019
7. From the above, it is clear that the appellant in the application for condonation of delay has taken a frivolous ground for condoning the delay. No sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal in time. The criteria of sufficient cause to be shown is not met. Learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vibha Bakshi Gokhale and another Vs. Gruhashilp constructions and Others,( supra), however, it is seen that this judgment is in respect of delay in filing rejoinder and evidence and not for delay in filing appeal or revision. Moreover, this judgment refers to only marginal delays, whereas in the present case the delay is about 300 days which cannot be said to be marginal when the permissible period is only of 30 days. In the present case, the appellant has only stated that he was shocked to receive the judgment of the State Commission, which he received after 08.08.2018. It is not the case that the appellant was not in the knowledge of the judgment as he received the judgment just after few days from the passing of the judgment by the State Commission. If the appellant was not in a position to take a decision whether to file appeal or not to file the appeal, then it is not something that was beyond the control of the appellant. In matters of appeals, the provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very clear that the appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of order or from the date of knowledge of the order. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has not clearly mentioned as to when he received the copy of the State Commission's order dated 27.7.2018. The appellant is admitting that the copy of the order was sent on 08.08.2018, however, the exact date of receipt by the appellant is not given. Even if 15 days' time is granted for the service, there is still a delay of 280 days in filing the appeal for which no justification has been given in this application for condonation of delay. The reason given by the appellant was totally within the control of the appellant. One's a party goes into litigation, it is expected that the order of the court may be passed either in favour or against the party and the party should be ready to receive the judgment of the court with full consciousness and to take further steps in the litigation. In any case, this cannot be considered as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
Section 5 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Jaikishan Aggarwal (Total Blind) vs Greater Noida Industrial Devp. ... on 23 July, 2014
"4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
1