(Delivered on 20/08/2016)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. Advocate Smt. Naik is present for the appellant. The respondent is already proceeded exparte.
2. We have heard learned advocate of the appellant on the application made for condonation of delay of 145 days that occurred in filing the appeal. The learned advocate of the appellant  explained the delay as stated in the application, in brief that the copy of the impugned order was received by appellant on 16/4/2015 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 16/5/2014. There was summer vacation  to this Commission till 2/6/2014 and the appellant had to take permission from higher authority for filing the appeal. The Branch Office Buldhana informed its divisional Office at Akola about the impugned order. The dealing counsel submitted  his opinion to Divisional Office at Akola. The said office forwarded copy of the same to Regional Office at Nagpur for seeking permission to file appeal. The Regional Office sought legal opinion from its panel advocate and after receiving opinion, the Regional Office decided to file appeal before this Commission . The Divisional Office, Akola thereafter sent papers for filing the appeal. Company call its penal advocate and handed over the papers to him for filing appeal. The advocate after going through all the papers found that the record is incomplete. Therefore advocate asked the company to call for record from dealing counsel of Forum. Thus, on receiving the complete record and  certified copy, the penal advocate prepared the appeal memo. Thereafter the counsel asked the company to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the District Forum, Buldhana as required for filing appeal. Thereafter the amount was deposited there on 11/8/2014. Then the appeal was filed before this Commission on 9/10/2014. She therefore requested that as aforesaid delay has been occurred only because of completing all the administrative formalities for filing the appeal as above, it may be condoned.
3. The learned advocate of the appellant also submitted that even otherwise the appellant has got a very good case on merits as driver of the vehicle which was damaged in an accident was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the Forum erred in partly allowing the complaint. No expenses incurred for repairing of damaged vehicle can be granted if the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. She therefore requested that as appellant has got a very good case on merits in the interest of justice, the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
4. It is seen that the Forum granted  compensation on non standard basis to the extent of 75 percent of the expenditure incurred by the complainant/respondent for repair of damaged vehicle. The Forum granted that amount on the basis of report of surveyor about the loss.
5. We  find that there is a long delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. In our view during these days of working through internet no such delay of 145 days  can occur for taking various steps and legal opinion by various higher authorities of appellant required for filing appeal. The delay of 145 days therefore occurred only because of gross in action on the part of the appellant and therefore such a long delay of 145 days cannot be condoned.
6. We also find that as the District Forum has granted the amount on non standard basis and as the delay of 145 days has not been properly explained by the appellant, the said delay cannot b e condoned. Thus, application deserves to be rejected.

ORDER

1. The application made for condonation of delay is rejected.
2. The appeal is dismissed as time barred.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.