SURENDRA PARMAR Vs. BAI HAVLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard Mrs. Nayanaben S. Shah, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. D. M. Advani, learned Advocate for opponent No.3. Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are served, but absent.

(2.) By this application delay of 1261 days caused in filing the appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act is sought to be condoned. Vide order dated 27.6.2007 notices were issued to the opponents as to why the delay should not be condoned. It is suggested from the copies of the notices placed on record by the applicant that opponent No.1 Bai Havli the original complainant, is served with the notice as there is thump impression overleaf of the copy of the notice. Opponent No.2 Dr. Harsahd P. Zhaveri is served as copy of the notice suggested signature of the recipient along with the rubber seal of the opponent No.2. Opponent No.3 - Dr. P. D. Modi is also served as copy of the notice suggested signature of the recipient on 17.7.2007.

(3.) Opponent No.2 has also given application Exh.9 stating that he has been served with the notice of the CMA No.340/2007 and requested to issue notice to the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. by joining them party in the proceedings as he is insured with the said Insurance Company. Opponent No.3 has appeared through Advocate and filed objections to the condonation of delay.