SONO LOGIST SHIVAM ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in the District Consumer Forum has challenged its order dated 21.9.2006 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 2 of 2005, before us on the ground, inter alia, that the impugned order was passed on the basis of forged document.

(2.) THE appeal is time -barred. Period of limitation for filing appeal expired on 21.10.2006, whereas Memorandum of Appeal has been filed on 18.3.2008. A petition under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules has been filed wherein it is stated that the appellant was transferred from Deoghar to Bishanpur in Gumla District and for this reason he could not pursue the case personally. And, the impugned order was passed on 21.9.2006, on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant -respondent, of which he could get the knowledge from the Newspaper, 'Prabhat Khabar' dated 27.9.2006 when he came to Deoghar during Durga Pooja. Then he obtained the certified copy of the order and filed Misc. Case No. 3 of 2006 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure code, on 17.10.2006. The said Misc. case was dismissed on 21.1.2008. Thereafter, on the advice of the Counsel, having taken certified copy of the order dated 21.9.2006, the present appeal could be filed on 18.3.2008. It is further stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the delay was not occasioned due to deliberate laches on the part of the appellant, rather it occurred on account of circumstances as stated above.

(3.) REJOINDER to the petition for condonation of delay has been filed in which facts stated in the condonation petition have not been controverted. Rather, in the rejoinder it is stated that in fact there has been unavoidable delay in filing the appeal. Paragraph 6 of the rejoinder is reproduced below: "That in fact there is unavoidable delay in filing the appeal which cannot be condone merely on the ground that appellant has no knowledge about passing the impugned order dated 21.9.2006.''