(Delivered on 24/01/2018)
PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. None for the appellant appeared for hearing on delay condonation application even on second call. We have heard Advocate Mr. Sawal appearing for the respondent and perused the delay condonation application and record and proceedings of the appeal. We now proceed to decide the application made for condonation of delay. The appellant filed the appeal along with said application for condonation of delay, showing the delay of 90 days that occurred in filing of appeal.
2. The reasons given for condonation of delay in brief are as under.
The copy of the impugned order was delivered to the appellant on 19/10/2016. The appellant is a body corporate having different departments and a Head Office at Jaipur. The appellant’s advocate on receiving the copy of the impugned order, he forwarded the same to the department along with the opinion of filing of appeal before this Commission. Moreover, the said office forwarded the said opinion of the advocate along with the copy of the impugned order to the Head Office at Jaipur for necessary guidance. The appellant company after consultation with its senior Executive Member decided to file the present appeal. During those steps, the delay of 90 days has been occurred. Thus, according to the appellant the delay is completely unintentional and bonafide and caused due to completion of procedural formalities. Hence, it is requested that it may be condoned.
3. The learned advocate of the respondent opposed the said application by filing reply on 18/12/2017 and he submitted that the actually delay is of 140 days and not of 90 days. He also submitted that the respondent had received the copy of the impugned order on 03/10/2017 and on next date i.e. on 04/10/2017 the respondent had intimated the appellant through the legal notice about that order and that the appellant intentionally did not take the copy of the impugned order from the Forum till 19/10/2017. According to him, grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactorily and hence, application made for condonation of delay may be dismissed.
4. We find that as copy of impugned order was received by the appellant on 19/10/2016 and therefore, appeal ought to have been filed on or before 19/11/2016. But it was filed on 08/03/2017. Hence, the delay is occurred from 19/11/2016 till 08/03/2017. Thus, there is in delay of 110 days in filing of the appeal.
5. The appellant has not given date wise explanation about moving of the file along with copy of impugned order from one place to another place. It is not shown in the application as to on which date the copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant from its advocate and on which date it was forwarded to the appellant’s Head Office and on which date the Head Office of Jaipur gave approval for filing of the appeal after consultation of its Senior Executive Member. In our view no such long delay of 110 days can be occurred for filing of appeal simply for obtaining approval from Head Office for filing of appeal.
6. The delay of 110 days is thus inordinate. In our view it is occurred only because of inaction and gross negligence on the part of the appellant in taking immediate steps required for filing of appeal. If the such a long delay is condoned without sufficient explanation, then it would defeat the very object of expeditious disposal of the proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Therefore we hold that as delay is not properly explained and as it is inordinate , the application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. Accordingly we pass the following order.
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.
