Adv.Mr.Vora is present for the appellant. Adv.Mr. Badhe is present for the Resp. We heard Advocates of both parties on delay condonation application. Learned Advocate of the azppellant submitted that actually a del;ay of 139 days in preferring the appeal has occurred as the copy of the impugned order dated 7/3/2007 was received by the appellant on 3/4/2007 and appeal ought to have been filed on 2/5/2007, but it is filed on 18/9/2007. Advocate for the appellant explained the said delay as mentioned in the application in brief to the effect that the head office of the appellant is situated at Chennai and the impugned order is written in Marathi language and hence it was required to translate the same into English and then it was sent to Chennai. He further submitted that after receipt of the order, the instructions were communicated to the counsel at Nagpur who then drafted the application and appeal and sent it to Chennai and after due sign, affidavits were sworn and sent back to Nagpur. He submitted that during the said procedfure delay of 139 days has been occurred. As it is occurred on administrative ground due to aforesaid reasons, the same may be condoned to meet the ends of justice. He also submitted that the appellant is ready to pay reasonable cost to the Respondent for condonation of delay.

The Learned advocate of the Respondent strongly opposed the ground of application. He submitted that the appellants office is situated at Pune and appellant No.2 is situated at Nagpur and as such both these offices are familiar with Marathi Language and, therefore, they could have translated the judgment into English and sent in short time to their Head office at Chennai. He also submitted that the appeal memo has been actually signed on 19/6/2007 and it was notarized on 30/7/2007 at Chennai. He further submitted that when the appeal memo was ready on 30/7/2007, there was no reason for filing the appeal after a long period of 91 days on 18/9/2007. He submitted that no explanation is given as to why such delay of 91 days has been occurred. He further submitted that delay has been caused only because of gross negligence and inaction on the part of appellant and there is no ground to condone the same and hence the delay may not be condoned.

Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the observations made in the case of Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Vasantkumar H.Khandelwal and Anr. and submitted that the National Commission has condoned a delay of 101 days in Rev.Pet.No.1849/2012 decided on 18/6/12.

We have gone through the said decision and other papers placed before us. The aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned advocate of the appellant, the delay of 101 days was condoned as the office of the appellant was situated at Chennai and the appeal was also required to be filed by the said office at Chennai. Whereas in the present case, the appellants are working in Maharashtra state i.e. at Pune and Nagpur. Therefore they could have translated the Marathi Judgment into English and they could have sent the same forthwith to their Head office at Chennai for getting approval. Moreover, the material fact of the present case is that the appeal memo appears to have been actually signed on 19/6/2007 and it was notarized on 30/7/2007 at Chennai. It is not stated as to when the said appeal memo was sent from Chennai office to Nagpur. It is also not explained as to why there was delay from 30/6/2007 till 18/9/2007 in filing the appeal. We find that the appeal memo was ready on 30/7/2007, and there was no reason for filing the appeal after a long period of 91 days on 18/9/2007.

We thus find that facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different from those of the aforesaid case relied upon by the learned advocate of the appellant. In our view, the delay of 139 days occurred in preferring the appeal is not properly explained by the appellant. On the contrary, it is seen that the delay has been caused only because of gross negligence and inaction on the part of appellant. Hence we are not inclined to condone the same. Hence we proceed to pass the following order.