JYOTI P.JANI,J. - (1.) THE present Civil Misc. Application has been filed by the original opponent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal against order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad in Complaint No. 95 of 2009.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Milan Dudhiya, learned Advocate for the applicant. According to the applicant, the delay is of 735 days. The cause of delay as stated is that no notice of the complaint was served upon the applicant by the Forum and free copy of the order was also not forwarded to the applicant. The present applicant obtained certified copy from the District Forum on 10.1.2012. Hence, the actual delay caused from the receipt of the certified copy of the order is 4 days but the delay from the date of the order is of 735 days. Hence, in the interest of justice, the said delay be condoned. Mr. Dudhiya has argued that the original notice of the complaint has not been served upon the applicant. On perusal of the postal acknowledgement, it transpires that the notice has been served upon Rajubhai Halani, Proprietor of Bhoomi Tractors Sales and Service. A reference be made yet to the notice correspondence between the parties. Notice dated 14.12.2007 addressed by Mr. F.A. Gadiwala to the applicant and the reply to the said notice by the applicant 's Advocate Mr. Ayaz Shaikh dated 25.4.2008 shows that it has been replied for and on behalf of Shri Raju Halani, Proprietor of Bhoomi Tractors Sales and Service, Shri Rajubhai Halani was proprietor of the applicant firm and he has been served with the notice of the complainant. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view of Mr. Dudhiya that Raju Halani has nothing to do with the applicant i.e. Bhoomi Tractors.
(3.) AS far as legal position with respect to the condonation or delay is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture, reported in II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793, has held that under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a Consumer Forum is under duty to dismiss the complaint filed beyond the period of limitation, if sufficient cause of delay is not shown.;