(Delivered on 20/07/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         We have heard Advocate Mr. C.B. Pande appearing for the appellant and Advocate Mr. Kaushik Mandal appearing for the respondent   on the  application made by the appellant in this appeal for condonation of delay of  61 days that occurred in filing of the present appeal.  We have also perused the record and proceedings of the present appeal.

2.         The learned advocate of the appellant has explained 61 days delay  on the lines  of  submission  made in the application. In short he submitted as under:

            The copy of the impugned order  was received  on 22/03/2017 by the appellant’s advocate.  He forwarded  the same  to the  dealing  office of the appellant  at Indore. The said dealing  office received that copy  of the impugned order  in first week of April -2017 and it  called relevant  claim  file in order to forward  the same  to the Head Office of Mumbai for appropriate steps. The Head Office of Mumbai after  receiving the said file, decided  to prefer   appeal  in first week of May-2017 and instructed  the dealing  office to  take necessary steps for filing  of appeal.  The  dealing office instructed  for release  of the statutory amount  required to be  deposited  for filing of appeal.  Various  cases were  to be handled throughout  India  and there were also  several  formalities   which were  to be completed  through  internal committee as required  for  filing  of appeal.  Considerable time was consumed for   compliance for all those formalities and therefore,  the delay of 61 days has been  occurred  in filing of  appeal.  The appellant has got good case on merits & therefore, in the interest of justice the said delay may be condoned.

3.         On the other hand,  the learned advocate  of the respondent  opposed the said application  by  making submission  in brief as under:

            No document is filed to show that  the  copy of  impugned order  was sent  from one office to another office of the appellant  and  therefore, it cannot be believed  that  the same was sent  from  one  office  to another  office of  the appellant  for obtaining  approval  for filing  of appeal.  The date wise explanation is also not given showing the particular date on which the steps were taken by each of the office of the appellant.  Therefore,  it is not show  what  exact of  time was taken by each of the office for  on ward submission  of   file  after receiving  the same.  No such  long delay of 61  days  can occur  during  this  day’s  simply for filing  of the  appeal when everything  is  being  dealt  with now by means of Inter Net. The delay of 61 days  is thus  not satisfactorily  explained  and hence,  the application may be rejected.

4.         It is seen that the respondent herein had filed counter appeal No. A/17/332 against the appellant for enhancement of rate of interest awarded by the Forum. However, today the respondent’s counsel has withdrawn the said counter appeal. Thus said counter appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn today.

5.         The learned advocate of the appellant relied on decisions in the following cases.

i.          National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Prasad  Bhagirath Swami, decided by this Circuit Bench at Nagpur  in appeal No. A/17/111 vide order dated 25/04/2018. In that appeal  the delay that occurred  in filing of appeal was of 70 days, it was not satisfactorily  explained  by the appellant  and hence,  application made for condonation of delay was rejected and appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.  

ii.          M/s. Technovations  Vs. Iffco Tokio General  Insurance  Co. Ltd.  in R.P. No. 740/2013  decided  by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 13/03/2013. In that case there was delay of 27 days  that occurred  in filing  of said revision petition.  The  Hon’ble National Commission observed that  petitioner  has failed  to adequately  explain the  said delay. Moreover, the  Hon’ble National Commission  also observed that  the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of  Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed that  It is also apposite to observe that while  deciding an application  filed  in such cases for  condonation of delay, the  Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been  prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions  in  consumer matters and the object of expeditious   adjudication of the consumer  disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions  filed  against the  orders of the  Consumer Fora.  Therefore,  the Hon’ble National  Commission rejected  an application  made for condonation  of delay  with cost of Rs. 5000/-.

iii.         Rishi Kedia Vs. New India Assurance  Co. Ltd.  and Anr.  in RP No. 2595/2015 decided  by the Hon’ble  National Commission vide order dated 16/02/2018. In that case the appeal was filed after the delay of 53 days. The Hon’ble National Commission held that the petitioner has failed to give sufficient cause to justify the delay of 53 days that occurred in filing of appeal.  Hence, the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the revision petition.

6.         At the outset we find that no document is filed in support of the application. Bare  statement  is made in the application  that  61 days  delay has been  occurred  because the file  was forwarded  from  one office to another  office for completing  administrative  formalities  and in that process  the delay of 61 days  has been occurred. In our view  such delay  of 61 days can not  occur  simply for filing of the appeal  when the appellant could have easily availed  the internet service  for forwarding  the file from  one office to the another office immediately.

7.         No doubt  the copy of the impugned order was received  from the Forum below  by the  appellant’s advocate  on 22/03/2017. It is not stated  in the application  as to  on  which particular date appellant  forwarded  the copy of  impugned order to dealing office of Indore. It is  also not stated  in the  application  as to  by what mode  i.e. either by post or  hand delivery the file was sent  from one office to  another  office. It is  stated in the application that    the  dealing office  received the copy of the impugned order, from  the appellant’s  advocate in first  week  of April-2017, still it is not  stated in the application  as to on which date the dealing office sent copy of the impugned order to Head Office of Mumbai for  further  steps. The  Head Office took  the  complete period  of one month  from first week of April-2017 till  first week of May-2017 for granting  approval  for filing  of appeal, which is not  reasonable.

8.         It is seen that  as per application, the Head Office  of Mumbai    decided to file  the appeal  in first week of May-2017. Then appeal was  not immediately filed,  but  it was filed  on 22/06/2017. Thus  unreasonable  period of  one  and half  month  was taken by the appellant for  filing of the appeal  after decision  was taken  by the Head Office for filing of appeal.  No such  delay of one  and half month  can occur after  decision  is taken  for filing of  appeal.

9.         We thus find  that  had the appellant  promptly  taken   steps  as  required  for filing of appeal  then it could have avoided  such long  delay of 61 days that occurred in filing  of appeal. Hence  we are of the considered view that  such long delay of 61 days  cannot be condoned  for  the reasons  given in the  application.  If such a long delay is  condoned  without  satisfactorily  explanation, it will defeat  the very object of expeditious  disposal of  appeal  filed under  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the result  the application  deserves to be rejected.

ORDER

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

ii.          The appeal  is dismissed as time barred.

iii.         No order as to cost  in  appeal.

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