Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/17/265

ANOOPSINGH MOHANSINGH PARIHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARNEJA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ADV.ABHIJIT PARIHAR

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
First Appeal No. A/17/265
(Arisen out of Order Dated 06/08/2016 in Case No. CC/132/2014 of District Nagpur)
 
1. ANOOPSINGH MOHANSINGH PARIHAR
R/O. 133, PANDEY LAYOUT, KHAMALA, NAGPUR
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ARNEJA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY PVT.LTD
123, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR-440 010., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR DR.JASPAL ARNEJA
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
2. DR. JASPAL ARNEJA
DIRECTOR OF ARNEJA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY PVT.LTD., 123, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR-440 010
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
3. DR. VIKASH GUPTA
CRITICAL CARE CONSULTANT AT THE ARNEJA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY PVT.LTD., 123, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR-440 010
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 21 Mar 2018
Final Order / Judgement

(Passed on 2/4/2018)

  1. None for appellant is present. Advocate Mr. Dagoriya is present for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submitted that he received appeal compilation, but copy of delay condonation application filed by the appellant is not supplied to him. The advocate of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the appellant failed to appear on last three dates and that no report is received about service of notice issued by this commission to the respondent No. 3 which was  given hamdast to the appellant for service  on 29/08/2017. The advocate of respondent No. 1 and 2 also submitted that impugned order has been already compiled with by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He therefore requested that appeal may be dismissed in default.
  2. Perusal of the record and proceeding of the appeal shows that the appellant in person had appeared before this Commission on 25/7/2017. On that date, direction was given to issue notice on delay condonation application to the respondent and appellant was directed to serve the same to the respondent by Registered Post A.D. The appellant received the notices for service on 29/8/2017. However he failed to appear on  subsequent three dates i.e. on 10/10/2017, 21/12/2017 & 31/01/2018. He has not supplied copy of delay condonation application to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though direction was given on last date i.e. on 31/01/2018 to supply the same to advocate of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Moreover the appellant has also not furnished any report about service of notice to respondent No. 3. Thus, we find that as appellant failed to appear on last three dates and as he has not furnished copy of delay condonation  application  to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and as he has not submitted report about service of notice to respondent No. 3, the application made by him for condonation of delay that occurred in filing of the appeal deserves to be rejected. Therefore the application made for condonation of delay  by the appellant is rejected. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. No order as to cost. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.