NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SOMNATH GANGULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order no.3 dated January 8, 2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No.169 of 2009 arising out of Consumer Redressal Forum, Calcutta, Unit II in its case no.156 of 2003.

(2.) The short fact involved in this case whether the commission was justified in not entertaining an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The opposite parties filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners and that application was contested by the petitioner herein. The said application came up for hearing before the learned District Forum on April 23, 2004 and the learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the application holding that M/s. Satabdi Emporium or its partners are not the consumers in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The aforesaid order of dismissal was challenged before the Hon'ble State Commission by filing S.C. Case No.224/A/04 and the Hon'ble State Commission after hearing both the parties directed the District Forum to hear the case afresh. Thereafter, the District Forum allowed the said claim application. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred the appeal bearing F.A. No.169 of 2009 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. There was 210 days delay in preferring the said appeal and as such, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of the delay in preferring the said appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State Commission dismissed the application by the impugned order and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, this application has filed.

(3.) Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the impugned order was passed on 25.08.2008 and the certified copy was applied for on 21.04.2009. The certified copy was made available on 04.05.2009 and the appeal was preferred on 06.05.2009. Thus, there were 210 days delay in preferring the appeal. The Hon'ble State Commission did not accept the explanation of delay to the effect that the concerned file was misplaced in the Chinsurah Branch office during renovation and the same could not be traced out by the learned Advocate. Such ground was disbelieved.