Back
2011(3) CPR 255
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President and M.L. Sahni, Member
Narayana IIT Academy —Appellant
versus
R.K. Sharma —Respondent
First Appeal No. 2010/173
Decided on 26.5.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Yash Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Distance is no ground for delay in filing of appeal.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24A—Education—Tuition—Academy left by respondent-student —District Forum awarded Rs. 63,000/- because student did not avail services of Academy—Delay of 17 days in filing appeal—Ground given by appellant academy is that their office is in Hyderabad and it took time for preparing papers of appeal and there was as such 17 days delay in filing appeal—This cannot be considered as justifiable and sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal—Appeal dismissed as time barred. (Paras 4 to 7)
M.L. Sahni, Member —The appellant OP is an academy of tuition, which prepares candidates for competitive examinations. The respondent student has left the academy and the District Forum has awarded Rs. 63,000 because the student did not avail services of the Academy.
2. This is an application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 17 days involved in filing the appeal against an order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the District Forum.
3. We have heard Mr. Yash Mishra, Counsel for the appellant Academy in this appeal.
4. The facts enumerated in the application for condonation of delay indicate shylockish attitude of the appellant Academy. They deserve no sympathy.
5. As to the merits of the question for condonation of delay it will be seen that the ground given by the appellant Academy is that their office is in Hyderabad and therefore it took time for preparing the papers of the appeal and there was as such 17 days delay in filing the appeal. This cannot be considered as justifiable and sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and if such view is taken the other companies having office elsewhere will also claim condonation of delay on this ground.
6. There are as such no sufficient reasons for condonation, and the application for the same is rejected.
7. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected. The appeal is therefore dismissed as time barred.
8. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant subject to complete of formalities.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Appeal dismissed.
********
