B.P.L. Telecom Private Limited
This is a discussion on B.P.L. Telecom Private Limited within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI – GOA. Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia … Presiding Member Smt. Caroline ...
- 09-01-2009, 02:54 PM #1
B.P.L. Telecom Private Limited
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANAJI – GOA.
Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia … Presiding Member
Smt. Caroline Collasso … Member
Appeal No. 19/2008
G-5, Town Centre,
BICHOLIM – GOA 403504. …Appellant
1. Deepa S. Patgaonkar,
Naik Nagar, Bordem,
Bicholim – Goa 403504.
2. B.P.L. Telecom Private Limited,
Palkkad 678007 Kerala. …Respondent
(Original O.P. No.2
For the Appellant … Miss S. Mandrekar, Advocate
For the Respondent …Advocate N. Kouthankar.
[Per Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member]
1. By this order we dispose off application seeking to condone delay in filing of Appeal No.19/08.
2. Appellant is original Opposite Party No.1 in Complaint No.16/2006 before the District Forum, North Goa at Porvorim, which complaint was substantially granted vide order dated 18-12-2007, and the Opposite Parties were directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,795/- to the Complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from 17-01-2006 till date of actual payment, and further costs of Rs.500/-.
3. It is the case of the Appellant that he was served copy of the order on 03-01-2008 that he was under the impression that there were three months for appeal and hence waited for 60 days and later sought legal advise in the first week of March when he came to know that the period for appeal is only 30 days and not 3 months as he presumed. He further states that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay was condoned.
4. Respondent No.1, who was original Complainant has opposed the application seeking to condone the delay on the grounds that the appellant has not clarified as to when and from whom he came to know that the period for preferring appeal was only 30 days and not 3 months; that great prejudice, hardship and irreparable loss would be caused to Respondent No.1 as a legal right accrued in her favour would be snatched away; and, that the Appellant has not justified the day to day delay after obtaining copy of the order.
5. We have perused the application. At the onset, we note that the application is not supported by any affidavit. Even assuming that the Appellant has been informed in the first week of March that the period for appeal was only 30 days, there is no explanation coming forth as to why he waited for over 15 days to file appeal which has been entered on 20-03-2008. Also, the appellant has not disclosed from whom he has sought legal advice, which indicates a very casual approach to the proceedings.
6. In the circumstances we do not think it fit to condone the delay.
7. Hence, application for condoning the delay is dismissed, and consequently the appeal No.19/08 stands rejected.
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 2Last Post: 03-14-2013, 09:58 PM
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 1Last Post: 08-25-2012, 09:00 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-16-2009, 10:37 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:41 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 12:21 PM