AMEYA BUILDERS Vs. DATTATRAYA TRIBAKRAO BHUSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 30.11.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State dismissing appeal against the order dated 30.6.2004 of a District Forum as being barred by limitation by 201 days.

(2.) COPY of application for condoning delay in preferring appeal filed before the State Commission is at pages 19-22 on the paper book. Grounds on which delay is sought to be condoned have been set out particularly in paras 2,4 and 6 of the application. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 /O.P. No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioners 2 and 3/O.Ps. 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. Petitioner No. 3 who met with an accident on 15.4.2004, remained hospitalized for about a month due to multiple fractures in leg and was advised complete rest up-to 15.1.2005. Petitioner No. 2 was out of station till 3.10.2004 in connection with another project of the firm at Purti Sugar Factory, Bela and after he returned to Nagpur, he had infective hepatitis and was under treatment which lasted for 3Vi months till 20.1.2005. It was further alleged that petitioners were intimated of the order dated 30.6.2004 of the District Forum by their Counsel on telephone. On receipt of notice in Misc. Case No. 107/04 from the District Forum, the petitioners contacted their Counsel for drafting appeal. Appeal drafted by Shri P. V. Bansod, Advocate was ready on 6.2.2005. Mr. Bansod made reservation of railway ticket for Mumbai for 7.2.2005 by Vidarbha Express but he unfortunately met with an accident on 7.2.2005 itself and was, thus, unable to undertake journey for a week. Delay in question was, therefore, unintentional. Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner No. 3 was advised rest upto 15.1.2005 on account of his having suffered multiple fracture in leg on 15.4.2004 and Mr. Bansod, Advocate was unable to travel for Mumbai on 7.2.2005 he having met with accident on that day. Still the explanation in regard to inability of petitioner No. 2 to file appeal within limitation period was not satisfactorily explained. Appeal against the order of District Forum dated 30.6.2004 should have been filed within 30 days of the passing of that order. To be only noted that in para No. 4 of the application only the date of 3.10.2004 on which petitioner No. 2 returned to Nagpur has been given. Date and month of the departure from Nagpur has been purposely withheld. Further, in support of petitioner No. 2 having suffered hepatitis only a zerox copy of the pathological report dated 9.10.2004 (copy at page 24) has been filed. This does not indicate that the condition of petitioner No. 2 was so serious that he was even unable to give instructions to the Counsel to draft appeal till 20.1.2005. Thus, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in re visional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.