(Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal is filed by the original complainant whose consumer complaint No. 28/2001 against Shri Shirish Kawale, M/s.Trimurti Tubewell, Nashik was allowed by District Forum, Nashik by judgement dated 07/11/2003. The appeal was filed by the original complainant in 2005, since then it was lying unattended. The appellant has not bothered to enquire with the office. As per the policy of the Commission, this matter was placed before us for disposal on 13/09/2011. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet board of the Commission. On 13/09/2011, on finding that appellant as well as the respondent was absent, we directed office to issue notice informing next date of hearing i.e. 25/11/2011 to both the parties. Accordingly, on 02/11/2011, office issued notices to the parties. On 25/11/2011 i.e. today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Therefore, we propose to dispose off the appeal on merit.
(2) By allowing the complaint, the forum below directed the opponent to clean & start the borewell and ensure that the same functions properly and keep watch on the working of borewell for the period of 6 months and also directed to the opponent to pay `2,000/- towards cost of proceedings. Not satisfied with the inadequate relief granted, the complainant filed this appeal on 11/10/2005 i.e. after roughly two years from the date of judgement i.e.07/11/2003. There is no application for condonation of delay, but in the affidavit filed in support of the appeal on 11/10/2005, he has simply mentioned that he had received the certified copy of the order on 15/11/2003. The said affidavit has not been duly affirmed & verified before Notary or Magistrate. He has further mentioned in the said affidavit that the appeal is being filed u/s. 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the circumstances, we are finding that the application for condonation of delay for granting delay of roughly two years, he is not mentioning any sufficient cause. Sec.24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to seek condonation of delay of 1 year and 11 months, he says that this appeal is independent of any application that the applicant may make, but he may challenge the order passed by the District Forum. So no sense is made out in the affidavit dated 11/10/2005. We presume that the application for condonation of delay of 1 year 11 months is liable to be rejected for want of sufficient ground. Under the circumstances, we cannot condone the delay. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 25th November, 2011.
