Miscellaneous Application No. 371 of 2012 and First Appeal No. 1033 of 2012. Case: Surekha Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs Lifeline Hospital and Medical Research Center Pvt. Ltd.. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberMiscellaneous Application No. 371 of 2012 and First Appeal No. 1033 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: K.G. Kulkarni, Adv.
JudgesS.B. Mhase, Presiding Member and Narendra Kawde, Member
IssueConsumer Law
Citation2014 (2) AllMR 45
Judgement DateNovember 21, 2012
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment:

S.B. Mhase, (Presiding Member)

  1. Heard Mr. K.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by District Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No. 114/2005 decided on 24/04/2012. By the said order, consumer complaint was dismissed. On the same day i.e. 24/04/2012 true copy of the said order was delivered to the appellant/org. complainant. However, appeal has been filed on 29/10/2012 and thus, there is delay in filing appeal. Therefore, delay condonation application has been filed to condone the delay of 35 days. However, we find that actual delay is more than 35 days and it has not been properly calculated by Advocate for the applicant/appellant who himself is brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the applicant/appellant.

  2. The ground for condonation of delay is that on 26/04/2012 Advocate for the applicant has preferred two applications for getting certified copies of the documents. It is stated that certified copies of the documents are required to be filed along with memorandum of appeal to support the objection mentioned in it. It is submitted that after his written request, documents demanded were received by the Advocate on 23/08/2012 and applicant/appellant has submitted applications to the District Forum for providing required certified copies on 26/04/2012, 21/06/2012, 05/07/2012, 30/07/2012 & 23/08/2012. All this is a cock and bull story. In fact when the appeal is filed on 29/10/2012 there was no question of any office objection in the appeal on 26/04/2012. Office objections are raised in the appeal by the office of the State Commission when the appeal is presented. Therefore, statement made in Para 5.1 that--"on 26/04/2012 an application was made to provide certified copies of the documents required to be filed along with memo of appeal to support the objections mentioned in it", this part of the statement is absolutely incorrect because at that time appeal was not preferred and there was no question of raising any objection by the office of the State Commission.

  3. Further it is stated that several applications on 26/04/2012, 21/06/2012, 05/07/2012, 30/07/2012 & 23/08/2012 were submitted and they were continuously followed-up. But the fact still remains that as per those applications, documents were given to the applicant on 23/08/2012. However, appeal has been filed thereafter on 29/10/2012. What was the difficulty in filing appeal after receipt of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT