Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President: This is a delay condonation application to condone the delay of 64 days. This appeal has been filed as against the order in complaint no.146/2009 on 16/11/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai. The complaint has been allowed. The appellant has been directed to reimburse Rs.36,086/-to the complainant towards the ticket of family from Mumbai to Baharain. The applicants are further directed to pay interest @6% p.a. from 29/07/2009 till realization of amount of Rs.52,418/-. Rs.5,000/- were directed to be reimbursed by way of purchase of necessary items. Rs.5,000/- were directed for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- were directed for costs. The amount is to be paid within period of four weeks. This order was passed on 16/11/2009 and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dispatched first free copy on 14/12/2009 under certificate of posting. The second copy has been taken by the appellant on 04/02/2010 and thereafter, the appeal has been filed on 17/02/2010. The ground for delay condonation is first copy which was dispatched by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was not received. However, second copy was obtained on 04/02/2010 and thereafter, it was referred to head office at Kuwait and after getting instructions from Kuwait on 14/12/200, appeal has been filed on 17/12/2010. Thus, according to appellant, there was administrative delay. Other side has taken serious objection to the delay condonation. They have field reply affidavit. It is their case that address of the appellant is same as shown in the complaint, address is not disputed. On the same address notice of the complaint was served and on the same address intimation has been sent. Therefore, presumption is that copy has been received by them and statement made in the application that copy has not been received is not a true and correct statement. However, for the purpose of delay condonation said copy has been suppressed by the appellant. He further submits that apart from this the respondent had intimated to them on telephone initially and thereafter, by e-mail dated 24/01/2010. Not only that second copy of the order has been also sent to them. Therefore, their contention is that copy has not been received and therefore ,they could not file appeal is not tenable in law. He further raised objection that there is nothing on record that copy has been received by Kuwait office and Kuwait office has given an order. No particulars have been placed on record by the applicant and therefore, Ld.Counsel for the opponent seriously objected for condonation of delay. In fact, when the address of the appellant is correct and not disputed one and when earlier notices of complaint were served on the same address therefore, it naturally follows that free copy sent to them was received by them and the statement that free copy is not received is not acceptable and therefore, it is rejected. It is interesting to note that no explanation in respect of office at Mumbai has been placed on record. When it is being asked they stated that they have sent second copy to the head office, however, second copy must haven been sent by e-mail. That e-mail has not been placed on record and/or compliance report through computer in respect of transmission is also not placed on record. Applicant stated that telephonic instructions have been received on 15/02/2010. However, noting to that effect is not placed on record. Offices like insurance company, airline have to function in a corporate way and shall have to keep their record perfect and produce the same whenever required. For the best possible reasons known to the applicant, they have not produced such documents. A transmission report of e-mail though which the certified copy of the order has been sent to their Kuwait office is also not produced on record. If it would have been produced that also could have been a sufficient material for them to file appeal and it was necessary to get copy of the order on 04/02/2010 and thereafter proceed with the matter. Apart from that they have received second copy of order on 04/02/2010. Why they have not approached to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for getting certified copy is not known and explained anywhere. It shows that airline officers were not diligent in discharge of their duties. However, this is a matter of foreign airline and in the interest of justice in order to given an opportunity to the appellant, we desire to condone the delay. However, equities can be balanced by imposing appropriate cost. Therefore subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- be paid by the appellant to the respondent within period of 15 days, delay is condoned. If payment is not made within stipulated time, appeal will be disposed of being barred by limitation. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. M.A.no.100/10 is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 15 days. 2. If payment of cost is not made within stipulated time, appeal will be disposed of being barred by limitation. 3. M.A. No.100/10 stands disposed of. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule. |
