United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs AJOY KUMAR NANDI

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 3.6.92 passed by the District Forum, Dumkain Complaint Case No. 1 of 1992. The impugned order reads as follows:- "Haziri filed on behalf of both parties. A joint petition has been filed on behalf of both parties that the O.P. has agreed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only. Advocate for petitioner agrees to it. THIS amount must be paid by the next date which will be on 8.7.92."

THIS appeal has been presented before this Commission on 6.7.92 i.d, after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of the impugned order and therefore an application supported by an affidavit has been filed under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules explaining the circumstances under which the memo of appeal could not be presented before this Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order. It may be mentioned that Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act very specifically lays down that the appeal has to be presented within the period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order. Of course this section also provides that the appeal can be admitted even if presented after specified period of thirty days if sufficient cause has been shown. We have perused the application filed by the appellant and also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. It appears that the impugned order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is mentioned in the application that the certified copy of the order could be available to the appellant on 6.6.92; that the Regional Manager of the appellant immediately contacted the appellant No. 1 to ascertain the position from appellant No.3 regarding the impugned order and that the impugned order was put up before the Regional Manager, Calcutta on 29.6.92 who decided to file this appeal and asked the Regional Manager, Patna to take proper legal advice for filing this appeal and thereafter it was referred to Mr. A.K. Sinha, Advocate for advice on 2.7.92, but as he was out of Patna on 2.7.92, the file was handed over to his clerk who asked the appellants to meet on 5.7.92 and on 5.7.92 the learned Advocate perused the file and thereafter this appeal could be presented before this Commission. Hence there has been delay in filing the appeal on the ground of consultation amongst the different concerned persons in taking the decision to file appeal against the impugned order which in our opinion is not sufficient ground for not filing this appeal within the specified period.

Under the circumstances the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is refused. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.

THERE will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed without costs. ______________