(Passed on 26.11.2013)

Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      Adv. Mr Apoorva De is present for the appellant.  Adv. Mr S M Kasture is present for the respondent.  We have heard both the parties on the application made by the appellant for condonation of delay. 

2.      We have heard both the parties on the application made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 110 days, which is occurred in preferring the appeal.  The advocate of the appellant submits that after receiving the copy of impugned order,  the appellant forwarded the same to its Head Office at Mumbai on 13.06.2011 for obtaining approval for preferring the appeal.  He further submits that the delay of 110 days has been occurred during the process of obtaining the approval for preferring the appeal.  He also submits that the delay has been occurred due to administrative exigency and hence it may be condoned.  He further submits that the liberal approach may be adopted in condoning the delay.  He also argued that the appellant has got a very good case on merit and on this ground also the delay may be condoned.

3.      On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent opposed the application and submits that no details are given in the application as to how the delay of 110 days has been occurred.  He also submits that the application simply shows that due to administrative exigency, the delay of 110 days has been occurred.  Thus, according to him, the delay has not been explained properly.  The appellant has no good case.  There is no error in the impugned order and hence, on this ground also the delay cannot be condoned.

4.      We have considered the contention of both the parties and perused the documents placed before us by them. The impugned order was passed on 18.04.2011 and its copy was received by the appellant on 13.06.2011.  Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 13.07.2011.  It is filed on 02.11.2011.  No doubt administrative approval was required to be obtained by the office of the appellant.  However, we find no such time of 110 days can be taken for taking the approval from Mumbai Office of appellant for preferring the appeal.  Thus, we find that the delay of 110 days occurred in preferring the appeal is not properly explained by the appellant.  Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act the appeal is required to be decided expeditiously particularly within 90 days.  In such case, we find that the delay of 110 days occurred in preferring the appeal cannot be condoned without any proper explanation for condonation of the said delay as stated above.

5.                So far as the merit of the case is concerned, we find that there is also no good ground for merits to condone the delay.  Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay on this ground. We, thus, hold that the application made for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. 

ORDER

i.        Application is rejected. 

ii.       The appeal is dismissed as time barred.

iii.      No order as to cost.

iv.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.