IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

ORISSA: CUTTACK

Misc. Case No. 75 of 2011

Arising out of F.A. No.26 of 2011

In the matter of;

An application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal;

And

In the matter of

Secretary, Service Co-Operative Society, Mundapada & Another

… Petitioners

-Versus-

Smt Priyambad Das & Others

… Opp. Parties

The humble petition of the petitioners above named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the aforesaid appeal has been filed challenging the Final Order dtd.26.10.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Boudh in Consumer Case No. 04 of 2010

2. That the Service Co-Operative Society, Mundapada makes different types of the loan facilities to the local people for the development of agriculture in the area. Besides that the society has been entrusted the work for distribution of rice, wheat, sugar and k.oil etc under the Public Distribution System. And thus the Society is over burdened of work. There are only two regular staffs in the society. Further the Secretary is also in-charge of the Secretary of the Service Co-Operative Society, Amajahari. The petitioners are overburdened in the society work and could not keep contact with his Advocate at Boudh. Due to communication gap they could not aware of the fact of the Final Order dtd.26.10.2010 passed by the learned Forum, Boudh.

3. That immediately after getting the notice on Execution Application No.28 of 2010 the petitioner talked his local Advocate over phone and learnt about the fact of the order. Then on 9^th January 2011 Sunday meet his local Advocate at Boudh who advised him to consult the Advocate at Cuttack. On the next Sunday i.e. on 16^th January the petitioners went Cuttack and consulted his Advocate and handed over the papers to prefer an appeal. The appeal was filed on 20.01.2011.

4. That the petitioners were ignorant of the impugned order and could not make the appeal in time within the period specified in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The delay in filing the appeal is neither willfully nor deliberate. The petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause. In facts there is no delay. The matter has been filed within the 30 days from the date of knowledge.

5. That in the interest of justice unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned the petitioners will be highly prejudiced & sustained irreparable loss & injury.

- PRAYER -

It is therefore, prayed that your Lordship’s would be graciously pleased to allow this application and condone the delay in filing the appeal;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray.

Cuttack By the Petitioners through,

Dtd.25.01.2011

Advocate.

- AFFIDAVIT-

I, Sri Suramani Behera, aged about 52 yrs, S/o late Meghu Behera, Village- Govindapur, Post- Juramunda P.S.- Baunshani, Dist.- Boudh, at present serving as Secretary, Service Co-Operative Society, Mundapada, At/Post- Mundapada, Dist- Boudh do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1. That I am the petitioner No-1 in the aforesaid application and authorized to swear the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner No-2.

2. That the facts stated above in this application as well as in this affidavit are all true to the best of my knowledge & belief.

Identified by,

Advocate DEPONENT.

Certified that due to non-availability of catridge papers this matter has been printed in thick white papers.

Cuttack.

Dtd.20.01.2011 Advocate.

--

Haider Ajaz