Back
a.
z1/
INTI.|ESTATEcoNsUMERDISPU-rESR'EDRESSAL
coM MrssroN, oR'rssA/ CI,JTTACK'
F.A. No.- li 2 \
or zor+
te
-\.
INI TI.IE MA.TTER OF:
IilI THE MATTER OF:
IN THE MATTER. OF:
An application U/s' 15
Consumer Protection Act,
of the
AN T)
Ari applic-ation arising out of order
dated 16.09 .2-073 Passed bY the
District Consumer DisPutes
ReclressaI Forum, NabarangPur itr
Consr-r rner Com plai nt No.B0/2-0 12 ;
AND
. Magrna Fincorp. l-tcl, repr-esented
trougfr it.s authorized siqnatory and
power cil-attorney holder Bibhuti
Bhusai-t MekaP, aged about 34
yea rs, So n of Bha rat Cha nd ra
Mekap, At Present serving as
Assistarrt Manager, l-egal, Magma
[-incorp. Ltd. At-K-2, Nirrnal Plaza,
ltt
floor,
Forest
Park,
Blrubaneswar, Dist. Khurda.
.'.. APPellant.
(Opposite Parties in the': F-orum below)
-Versus-
Gopal Sagadia, aged about 64 yearsi
Son of Late Jihna Saga.dia, At-Senapqti
Street, PO/ PS/Dist. Nabarangpur.
(Complainant in the Forurn below)
-r-r-^
l_-,,.-l_\l^
... Respondent.
an1141;1l mernn
nf
Sl. No.
of Order
Date ol'
Otder
ORDb.I{ WI'|H SIGNAI'I ]RT]
OITice note as to action (ifany).
taken on Order
t7
2t,l , t;-
Mlsc. Case no. 348 of
This relates to a petition for condo
delay of 108 days in preferring the appr
found that in fact there is delav of 14(
appeal.
f{ear.d learned counsel for the pe
appears on behalf of opposite party/resp
Learned counsel for petitionerf a
there is sufficient ground to condone th
of delay has been explained in para 4 of I
It is apposite to quote the said
follows:-
" That, upon receipt of tl
l
E
ation of delay. There is
.1. On calculation, it is
days in preferring the
.itioner/appellant. None
>ndent on call.
cpellants submits that
e delay and the ground
he limitation petition.
para, which reads
.e order copy the advocate
rwarded the same to the
rnt - petitioner which was
e sarne was'forwarded ,to
rlkata .on .11.10.2013 for
re appeal. Due to Dussera
1.10.2013 to 19.10.2013
read sent his opinion for
013 the state office of the
the higher arrthority for
authority on 30.10.2013
re appeal. On 10.0I.2OL4
ORDER WII'[l SIGNAT(JRtl
the state legat d
documents to the ad
The advocat.e for the
sent the draft appeal
The approved and
advocate on 2O.2..2OI
24.2.2074."
The advocate for the petiti
the draft appeai memo. Wher. t
thirty days from the date of rect
bJ, the time the learned aclv
prepare and file the appeal, sin
already over he shor.rld had been
17 days in preparing it. Moreover
24 days to appr ove and verifv th
inclined to allo,uv the misc. c
Accordingly, the misc. case is
First Appeal rio. I2I of 2014 stan
Office note as to action (ifany)
taken on Order
t handed over all the
te at Cuttack for liling of appeal.
pellant at Cuttack on 27.O7.2014
emo for approval and verification.
fied draft was handgd over to the
and the appeal was presented on
er took 17 days in preparing
appeal was to be filed within
pt of the impugned orcler and
te receipt the documents to
the period of lin:itation'was
lert and would not have taken
it would not have taken about
appeal memo. So, we are not
and condone the delay.
missed and consequentially,
dismissed.
F.,
(Justice R.N.Biswal)
President
-.<
:
(Smarita Mohanty)
Member
Re*.*lt -"1 9.O
@"v,
|P{\4P-PTS-U 1 (H. C.) 13-1s,0O0-S.1G.2009
N,{,ro r.._\. yl.
@)"
