2012(2) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 14
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
S.B. MHASE, S.R. KHANZODE AND NARENDRA KAWDE, JJ.
Mr. Anand Prakash Singh Vs. Dr. Samir Pilankar & Anr.
First Appeal No.1075 of 2007
30th September, 2011
Petitioner Counsel: O. D. GOSWAMI
Respondent Counsel: RAJENDRA CHAUDHARI, ANAND PATWARDHAN
Consumer Protection Act (1986), S.15 - Appeal - Delay of 269 days - Condonation - Appellant stated that certified copy of order was misplaced - Date of misplacement however not mentioned - Held, appeal could have been filed on the basis of photocopy of order, making statement that certified copy has been misplaced - No justification to wait for 269 days - There appears to be afterthought attempt of appellant to challenge order of District Forum. (Para 3)
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal as against an order dated 13/10/2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.252 of 2004. Admittedly, there is a delay of 269 days in filing the appeal. The only ground which has been stated for condonation of delay is quoted in paragraph (03) of the delay condonation application, which reads as follows:-
"I further state that I received the certified copy of order on 30/10/2006. After receiving the order I had been to Varanasi for the purpose of my medical treatment of leg and hand. I further state that the said order was also misplaced and therefore I could not file the appeal within time therefore there is delay of about 269 days and I pray that delay may be condoned."
3. On perusal of the ground, we do not find what is the date on which the certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum was misplaced by the Appellant. Further, a fresh copy which was taken by the Appellant for filing an appeal has not been annexed to the appeal. On the contrary, a copy which was taken on 30/10/2006 is annexed to the appeal memo. That is a photocopy of the first certified copy which was received by the Appellant/ original Complainant. It is a ground put forth by the Appellant that said copy has been misplaced. However, an appeal could have been filed on the basis of photocopy of order on making a statement that original certified copy is misplaced. This is no justifying reason to wait for a period of 269 days after the period of limitation was over. This appears to be an afterthought attempt on the part of the Appellant/original Complainant to challenge the order passed by the District Forum. This delay condonation application is opposed by both the Respondents. We find that the ground which is made is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the delay condonation application bearing Miscellaneous Application No.1438 of 2007 hereby stands rejected. In view of rejection of delay condonation application, appeal bearing No.1075 of 2007 stands dismissed as time-barred.