26.04.16

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

This is delay condonation application filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal.  There is delay of 1 year 1 month and 9 days’ in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the office address of the company provided in the consumer complaint was not proper.  Moreover, the Registered Office of the company was not arrayed as party to the consumer complaint.  In para 9 of the affidavit of Sh. Karan Purohit filed in support of the delay condonation application, it has been alleged that as on date, the office of project unit in Dehradun has been closed due to some reason and, therefore, even no summons could be served.  It was also submitted that the complainant has not made any effort to make either the Circle Office or Registered Office of the company as party in the consumer complaint and, therefore, the summons were not served.

We have perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum, wherein specific finding has been recorded that the notices were issued to the opposite parties to the consumer complaint and service upon the opposite parties was deemed sufficient per order dated 09.09.2014 and since the opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum and hence the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against them.

We have also perused the affidavit of Sh. Karan Purohit filed in support of the delay condonation application.  There is no mention of the date in the affidavit as to when the office of the company situated at Dehradun was closed.  No authority letter executed by the company in favour of Sh. Karan Purohit has been filed, so as to authorize him to swear the affidavit on behalf of the appellant and also to file the present appeal on behalf of the appellant.  No Power of Attorney executed by the company in favour of Sh. Karan Purohit has also been filed.  It is also important to mention here that the address of the appellant mentioned in the memo of appeal contains the same particulars as that of opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint filed before the District Forum.

We are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal is callous and the appellant has not been able to extend any satisfactory reason for condoning inordinate delay of 1 year 1 month and 9 days’ in filing the appeal.  Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.  Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation.  No order as to costs.