DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPH GAYA Vs. S K DALMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent are present. They have been heard.

(2.) This appeal is directed against order dated 17.7.92 passed by the District Forum, Gaya in Complaint Case No.52 of 1992 in which the appellant before this Commission was the O. P. and the respondent was the complainant. As the memo of appeal was presented before this Commission on 3.9.92, that is, after more than thirty days from the date of the impugned order an application along with an affidavit under Rule 8 (4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules has been filed explaining the circumstances under which the memo of appeal could not be presented within thirty days from the date of the impugned order as required by Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act ).

(3.) We have perused the petition and the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the copy of the impugned order was sent by the District Forum on 24.7.92, which was received by the appellant on 25th July, 1992. But this appeal has been presented on 3.9.92, that is, more than a month after the date of the receiving the copy of the order. It was not presented even within a month of the getting knowledge of the order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on receipt of the order by the department, time was taken in seeking legal opinion and sanction by the higher authorities to file the appeal and on these grounds prayer has been made for the condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. On the facts stated on behalf of the appellant we are not satisfied that there was sufficient ground for the appellant for not presenting the appeal before this Commission within the prescribed period mentioned under Sec.15 of the Act.