Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President & Mr. C.P. Budhiraja, Member
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA—Applicant
versus
MRS. RAVI KANTA GOYAL & ANR.—Respondents
Misc. Application No. 1822 of 2002 in Appeal No. 1598 of 2002—Decided on 24.3.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Applicant :Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate.
Insufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Appeal Filing - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stating that there were insufficient grounds to justify the delay.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were insufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissed the application and the appeal as belated.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, sufficiency of grounds for condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were not sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as belated.
Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 19.3.2002 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called the “District Forum”).
2. According to the applicant-appellant/opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called the “applicant”), appeal against the impugned order dated 19.3.2002 was filed on 16.10.2002 attaching only a photostat copy of the order along with the grounds of appeal. The appeal was returned to the applicant vide order dated 18.10.2002 of this Commission by passing the following order :
“Without certified copy the appeal is not competent. The papers may be returned to the appellant or his representative. This appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.”
3. It is mentioned in the application that on the basis of the order of the Commission dated 18.10.2002, the applicant had advised its Ludhiana Office on 25.10.2002 to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. The Ludhiana Office made an application before the District Forum on 29.10.2002. The certified copy was supplied to the applicant on 29.10.2002 itself. Even after the receipt of the certified copy on 29.10.2002, the present appeal was filed only on 27.11.2002. The ground for delay in filing the appeal as mentioned in the application is only that the applicant was a financial institution and the present case was dealt by its Head Office which had taken some time.
4. In these circumstances, we hardly find any sufficient ground to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. This application is, thus, dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as belated.
Misc. Application dismissed.
___
