D J DE SOUZA Vs. CHAMPANERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the respondent has filed an application for substitution of Arkray Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in place of Span Diagnostics Ltd. It is averred that after the filing of the present Revision Petition a Business Purchase Agreement dated 24.01.2014 was executed between Arkray Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and the Respondent Company. Respondent Company has transferred by way of slump sale all it's debts, borrowings, obligations and liabilities, both present and future in respect of it's business of In-Vitro Diagnostic Undertaking on a going concern basis to Arkray Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 5th March, 2015. It is prayed that Arkray Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. be substituted in place of the respondent. We have heard the counsel for the respondent and the complainant/petitioner in person. It is hereby ordered that instead of substitution Arkray Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. be also added as a party in this case.

(2.) We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the respondent on the merits of this Revision Petition. The State Commission vide its order dated 17.09.2013 declined to condone the delay of 11 days because the complainant failed to prove the sufficient cause for condonation of the said delay. The State Commission quoted one judgment reported in (2013 1 CCC 525) wherein it was held that delay of shortest range may be un-condonable for want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, the delay of a long range is condonable, if the explanation is satisfactory. The complainant had received the copy of the District Forum's order on 26.04.2013. He filed the complaint by post, which was received in the Commission on 07.06.2013. The complainant contended that he was facing health problems, namely, pain in his left knee for which he sought medical help from Dr. Bandekar, Orthopaedic specialist and Dr. Mohit Mody from Wockhartd Nusi Hospital and he was advised physiotherapy and ordered to have rest for the affected knee joint and as such was not in a position to file the appeal before this Commission by 26.05.2013. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by time. It was observed that the petitioner had failed to produce the medical certificate.

(3.) Thereafter, he filed the review petition, which was dismissed on 20.11.2013.