CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal nos.643 to 645/2008 in Date of Filing: 02/05/2008

M.A.Nos. 14,16/2007 & 02/2008

District Consumer Forum:Pune Date of Order: 15/07/2009



1.Smt.Ranjana Narayan Baravkar, Appellants

At & Post-Devlegaon Gada(Vitthalwadi), (Org. Applicant in

Taluka- Daund, District- Pune. M.A.no 14/2007)



2. Shri Manohar Mahadeo Raut, (Org. Applicants in

3. Sau Kamal Manohar Raut, M.A.no 16/2007

Survey No.79, Galli no.5,

Hingane Mala, Hadapsar, Pune.



4. Smt.Shobha Nanabhau Londhe, (Org. Applicant in

At & Post Chandgaon M.A.No 02/2008

Taluka Shrigonda, Dist- Ahmednagar.



V/S.



1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondents

2. Senior Divisional Manager, (Org.Opposite Parties)

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

586, Sadashiv Peth, Laxmi Road,Pune.

3. Executive Eengineer, Baramati Division

M.S.E.B. Baramati

(Now Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution company) Bhigwan Chowk,

Baramati, Dist- Pune.

4. Secretary, M.S.E.B. Prakashgad,

Bandra(East) Mumbai.

5.M.S.E.B, Staff Welfare Fund Committee,

Mumbai.



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

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present: Adv.Shri K.N.Lokhande for appellant.

Adv.Shri M.M.Mahajan for respondent nos. 1 &2.

Adv.Shri S.Hussain for respondent nos.3,4 & 5.





:- ORDER :-

Per Smt. S.P.Lale Hon’ble Member:

These appeals are filed by the appellants against the respondents i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. and M.S.E.B. being dissatisfied by the order passed by District Forum, Pune dated 31/03/2008 in M.A.nos. 14,16/2007 and 02/2008 on application for condonation for delay being part and parcel of the main complaints. Forum below rejected the misc.applications on the ground that the complainants failed to explain the enormous delay in filing the complaints.

Since these appeals involves common question of law and facts, we ar disposing of these appeals by this common order.

We heard Adv.Shri K.N.Lokhande for appellant, Adv.Shri M.M.Mahajan for respondent nos. 1 &2 and Adv.Shri S.Hussain for respondent nos.3,4 & 5. Perused the record.

After considering the documents placed before us and after perusing the order dated 31/03/2008, we find that bear statement of poverty will not afford any sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay caused in the present cases. The appellants have failed to give a proof as to whether they fall below poverty line. Judicial system in India provides help to the poor people by giving free Legal Aid & Advice Services and they are available at the door steps of the common man. Therefore, poverty alone cannot be a ground to condone the enormous delay. It is true that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is benevolent legislation. We find that the applicants failed to explain delay of about three years in case of M.A.Nos. 14/2007 & 2/2008 and about eight years in case of Misc.Application No.16/2007.

All these appellants slept over their statutory rights and made no efforts whatsoever to approach the Forum, particularly after their claims were repudiated. The delay is not explained satisfactorily and therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that these claims are ex-facie barred by period of limitation.

In the result, we pass the following order:-





:-ORDER-:

1. Appeal nos. 6432008, 644/2008 and 645/2008 stands dismissed,

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





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

Member Presiding Judicial Officer.