CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal no.1548/2008@ Date of Filing: 08/12/2008

Misc.Application No.2182/2008- Delay

Consumer Complaint No.103/2008

District Consumer Forum: Thane (Addl.) Date of Order: 27/07/2009



Mr.Divyesh Sindhwad, Appellant

Flat No.101, Raj Palace, Plot No.16, (Org.Complainant)

Sector 2, Kopar Khairane,

Navi Mumbai- 400 709

Through its constituted Power of Attorney holder

Mr.Bhupendra Kumar Shrivastav

V/S.

1. M/s. New Zealand Immigration Consultants, Respondent

(Division of New Zealand International) (Org.Opp.Parties)

E/117, Floral Deck Plazza, Off.Central

M.I.D.C. Road, Near Seepz, Andheri (East)

Mumbai- 400 093

2. M/s. New Zealand Immigration Consultants

2nd floor, Arneja Corner,

Sector- 17, Vashi.



Corum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present: Adv.Shri Shyam Patil h/f Adv.Shri Rajan for appellant.

None for respondent.



:- ORAL ORDER :-

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 15/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 103/2008, Mr.Divyesh Sindhwad V/s. M/s. New Zealand Immigration Consultants by Additional District Forum, Thane (Forum below in short).

It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondents/opposite parties agreed to render services to secure visa for the complainant to visit

New Zealand. Accordingly, they entered into an agreement dated 06/10/2003. Under the said agreement Rs.3,50,000/- towards visa charges were to be deposited with the respondents/opposite parties by the complainant till the visa is sanctioned. The visa was not sanctioned. The amount was returned back in the year 2004 by issuing cheques. Those cheques were dishonored. The complainant sent written notice to opposite party on 17/03/2005. The consumer complaint is filed in on 18/06/2008. Therefore, holding that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation, the complaint stood dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the original complainant.

We heard Adv.Shri Shyam Patil h/f Adv.Shri Rajan for appellant. None for respondent. Respondent is yet to be served. It is only notice before admission @ delay condonation application. Therefore, preliminary hearing before admission is held today and the appellant is heard.

There is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. Therefore appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. No just and sufficient cause has been shown in the application for condoning the delay. Delay is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, M.A.No. 2182/2008 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

However, by abundant precaution we have carefully perused the record and assessed the factual situation. We find no fault with the impugned order. The complaint being clearly time barred, the Forum below rightly held accordingly. No reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, finding the appeal without any merits, we pass the following order:-

:-ORDER-:

1. Misc.Application No.2182/2008 for delay stands rejected.

2. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.



(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member

Nbh