Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Sanjay Sinha on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant and Adv. Mrs. Veena Wagle on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent on the application for condonation of delay.
[2] Applicant/Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the ex-parte judgment & order dated 15/5/2010 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.175 of 2009, Mr. Atul Agrawal Vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited. By the said order, the consumer complaint was partly allowed and the Applicant/Appellant was directed to refund to the Non-Applicant/Respondent, an amount of `29,474/- and also to pay an amount of `5,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony besides costs of `3,000/-. As such this appeal has been filed but in filing this appeal there is a delay of admittedly 309 days. Delay is not properly explained in the application for condonation of delay. Dates mentioned are also not appealing. It has been mentioned by the Applicant/Appellant that the order was passed on 15/5/2010 by the District Forum and the copy of the order was not received by the Applicant/Appellant directly from the District Forum but, the order was sent by the Complainant’s advocate on 29/8/2010. If, the Applicant/Appellant had received copy of the impugned order on 29/8/2010, we fail to understand as to how in paragraph (03) of the delay condonation application it has been mentioned that the Applicant/Appellant had applied for getting certified copy of the order on 2/7/2011. It is the contention of the Applicant/Appellant that they got knowledge of the order only after they received copy of the order passed by the District Forum which was sent to them by the Complainant’s advocate on 29/8/2010 but in the next breath they are saying that they had applied for certified copy of the order on 2/7/2011. So, all these dates are not tallying with each other and delay is sought to be condoned of 309 days. Delay is not at all properly explained by the Applicant/Appellant in the application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a fit case wherein we should allow the application for condonation of delay on such sort of pleadings and evidence adduced by the Applicant/Appellant in support of the application. In the circumstances, we are inclined to reject the delay condonation application.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.306 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.582 of 2011 stands rejected. Consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration.
Amount deposited by the Applicant/Appellant with the State Commission at the time of filing of the appeal shall be directly paid to the Non-Applicant/Respondent by the Registrar of State Commission towards part-satisfaction of the award passed by the District Forum.
Amount deposited in the execution proceeding pending before the District Forum shall also be paid to the Non-Applicant/Respondent directly by the District Forum towards part-satisfaction of the award passed by the District Forum.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced and dictated on 02nd March, 2012
