TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. SURINDER KUMAR
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-3-2
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 18,2009

TATA MOTORS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
SURINDER KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL - (1.) THIS is an application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Facts as mentioned in this application are, that impugned order was passed on 2.1.2007 and its copy was made available to the learned Counsel for the appellant on or around 6.1.2007. Thus the appeal could be filed by 5th February, 2007 or at best on first reopening day after long winter break. This legal position could not be disputed on behalf of the parties.
(2.) APPEAL shows that, it was filed on 12.5.2008, after a very long delay.
(3.) A perusal of the application further shows that according to the appellant it had instructed its dealer to engage a Counsel, who after receipt of the letter with draft asked the Counsel at Dharamshala to file the appeal. The matter was further stated to have been entrusted to Shimla based Advocate for doing the needful and for arguments Counsel at Dharamshala was to represent it, (the appellant). However needful was not done. Appellant further claims that after long pursuance, on 24.4.2008 the appellant received letter dated 21.4.2008 from Advocate Mr. Dinesh Verma, Dharamshala who intimated that he had entrusted the filing of appeal to lawyer at Shimla to whom he sent the papers. Further according to appellant he was informed by the said Counsel, that during shifting, the Counsel had misplaced the file and after location the same, learned Counsel at its own level tried to file the appeal before this Commission, but the same was not accepted because draft had already expired. In this background appeal was filed with a prayer to condone the delay which was neither wilful nor intentional, but was due to reasons beyond its control. This application was seriously resisted and contested by the respondent No. 1. This application is duly supported with the affidavit of one Mr. M.S. Pradeep on behalf of the appellant. Contents of his affidavit reveal that it is nothing, but reproduction of the facts detailed in the application.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.