BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.



FA.IA.No.1019/2009 & FA.(SR).No.1949/2009 against C.C.No167/2007, District Forum-III, Hyderabad.



Between:



CDR Good Health Club,

A Division of CDR Medical Industries Ltd.,

R/o.Office 3-6-287, Hyderguda,

Hyderabad-29.

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. .. Petitioner/Appellant/

Opp.party

And



R.Vittala Chary, S/o.Satyanarayana,

Aged about 41 years, Occ:Govt.Employee,

R/o.1-3-183/39/15B,

Kawadiguda, Hyderabad. . .Respondent/Complainant.



Counsel for the Petitioner M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.



Counsel for the Respondent.- Admission Stage.



QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.



FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND NINE



ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Satyanand, Hon'ble Member.)

***



The opposite party before the District Forum against which the District Forum passed an order filed this petition to excuse the delay of 416 days in filing the appeal along side it also filed the appeal papers which remained unnumbered.

The reasons for the delay came to be stated in the accompanying affidavit. It is the case of the petitioner that the office of the opposite party/petitioner was shifted at the relevant point of time, as such notice in the order copy was not received by the opposite party. It came to know about the passing of the order only when it received notice in the P.P. The District Forum had passed an order on 29-2-2008, as such, a delay of 416 days occurred in filing the appeal and the petitioner tried to characterize the delay as being neither intentional nor wilful.

This ground appears to be frivolous as after all shifting of the office would not justify a party loosing track of its correspondence. As the first thing any reasonable person will do in the wake of a change of address is to inform the postal and other authorities about the change so that the correspondence would not be lost. This kind of arrangement is all the more expected from a business unit like the petitioner. We are not inclined to condone the delay on mere asking as it would decide the course of justice to the detriment of the weak consumer like the one before us.

Accordingly this petition fails and is therefore dismissed and FA (SR).No.1949/2009 is also rejected. No order as to costs.