Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      We have heard both advocates on the application made for condonation of delay by the appellant. The delay shown in the appeal is of 50 days that occurred for filing of the appeal. The learned advocate of the appellant made submission on the lines of the grounds raised in the said application. 

2.      In short, the delay is explained to the effect that after receiving copy of the impugned order on 25.04.2016 by the counsel of the appellant, it was sent to the appellant’s Nagpur branch by him in the first week of May 2016. The Nagpur branch of the appellant completed all the formalities and then forwarded the same for necessary advice to file appeal to its Corporate Office, Mumbai in the second and third week of May 2016.  The Corporation Office on receipt of file forwarded the same to its Technical Department in second week of June 2016 for their opinion as per procedure. After due scrutiny of the file, the Technical Department returned the filed in the last week of June 2016 with opinion to prefer appeal against the impugned order being question of law is involved and as per settled law the company has no liability looking to the fact involved in the said matter. After receipt of the said opinion, the appellant’s legal department forwarded the file to the counsel for preferring the appeal. After completing the formalities for allotment of the matter, it was entrusted to the counsel for preferring the appeal in the first week of July 2016.  However, as the counsel did not receive entire documents required for preparing the appeal and the statutory amount was not also received, the same was demanded from the company and on receipt of the same the appeal came to be filed after due approval of the draft. Thus, according to the appellant, there are various other cases to be handled at branch level and pressure of compliance of the award passed in the various matters of all over India, the delay of about 50 days has been occurred and therefore, it may be condoned.

3.      The learned advocate of the respondent / original complainant strongly opposed the application by filing reply to the said application. In short, his submission is that copy of the impugned order was certified by the Forum below through Registrar on 10.04.2016, but the appellant took it after 20 days i.e. on 25.04.2016, which delay is also not explained by the appellant. Moreover, such a long delay now a days cannot occur as the information can be reached by fax, telephones, etc. The appellant has not explained the delay from 25.04.2016 till third week of May, 2916.  Moreover, the delay that occurred for forwarding the file from its Corporate Office to its Technical Department till second week of June 2016 is not bona fide and not properly explained. The cause of demanding the entire documents for preferring appeal is not acceptable in the eyes of law. A period more than one month cannot be taken for obtaining signature on documents. The appellant from very beginning is not willing to indemnify the respondent and they want to escape liability on one or the other ground.  Thus, since the delay is not properly explained in this application, it may be rejected.

4.      It seen that after receipt of the copy of impugned order on 25.04.2016, the appellant’s advocate forwarded the same to the Branch Office of the appeal in first week of May 2016.  Thus, he took time of more than 7 to 10 days in forwarding the same to the said branch office of the appellant.  Thereafter on receiving the said copy of the order, the branch office of the appellant did not immediately send the same to the Corporate Office. It took again a period of one week for forwarding the same to Corporate Office.  The Corporate Office again took a period of about one month for forwarding the same to its Technical Department for opinion. It is not explained as to why the Corporate Office took the entire period of 30 days for simply forwarding copy of the impugned order to the Technical Department. No such time of one month can occur for forwarding the copy of the impugned order to the Technical Department during these days. Moreover, the Technical Department returned the file in the last week of June 2016. Thus, the Technical Department also took time from second week of June 2016 till last week of June 2016 i.e. two weeks time for giving the opinion.  No such time of two weeks can be caused simply for giving the opinion, in such a matter. Moreover, after receiving opinion in last week of June 2016, the papers were entrusted to advocate only in the first week of July 2016.  It is not known as to why all the requisite documents, which were available with the appellant, were not forwarded to the said counsel for drafting the appeal. The complaint before the Forum below was duly contested by the appellant.  It can be, therefore, presumed that all the documents were available with the appellant during the pendency of the complaint.  No explanation is given as to why all the said documents were not forwarded alongwith copy of the impugned order from one place to another place to avoid delay.  It is also not explained as to why in anticipation the entire documents were not collected by the appellant as required for drafting of appeal. 

5.The copy of impugned order was received by appellant’s advocate on 25.04.2016. It is seen that though the counsel of the appellant received that order on 25.04.2016, the time till 15.07.2016 was occurred for filing of appeal.  We, thus, find that delay that occurred at every stage as discussed above, for moving the file from one place to another place, is not explained satisfactorily.  We are of the considered view that as the delay is not properly explained, no such delay can be condoned particularly when under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specific period is provided for disposal of the appeal. Considering the same it was incumbent on the appellant to take all the steps promptly and diligently. But it failed to do so.

6.      The Hon’ble Supreme court in the recent case of Anshul Aggarawal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, has specifically observed that as Consumer Protection Act special specifies the period of limitation, object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes would be defeated if belated petitions are entertained. 

7.      We, thus, find that as the delay of 50 days occurred, only because of not taking prompt and diligent steps by the appellant at every stage of moving the file from one place to another place, it cannot be condoned. Accordingly following order is passed. 

ORDER

i.        The application made for condonation of delay is rejected.

ii.       The appeal is dismissed as time barred.

iii.      No order as to costs in this appeal.

iv.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.