Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

     This is an application for condonation of delay in filing Misc.Application No.539/2010 for restoration of an Appeal no.637/2007 which stood dismissed for default on 29.03.2010.  Since there is delay of 122 days in filing this application for restoration, this application is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. These applications are opposed by Respondent/Original Complainant Society on the ground that the delay is of 153 days and not only of 122 days and further that the reasons mentioned in the application are not at all convincing and the delay is not satisfactorily explained.

     The order which sought to be recalled is dated 29.03.2010 and which reads as under:

“Appellant is absent.  Appellant has not provided two sets of appeal memo. Respondent’s Advocate is present.  Hence, this appeal is dismissed for default.”

     Thus, it is clear that on that on that day none was present for the Appellant and the impugned order was passed in those circumstances, firstly for their non-appearance and since directions earlier were not complied with.

     Before dismissal, as per impugned order the matter was taken up on 1^st February, 2010.  On that day pursis was given to hear the application for the stay and that matter was adjourned to 29.03.2010. 

     As per the certified copy of the impugned order filed along with this application it could be seen that copy of the said order was first issued (true copy) by the Commission to the parties on 20.07.2010.  It ought to have been received in the normal course.  It is not disputed that it was sent on current address.  However, there is no statement made in the application as to on which date said copy was received.  However, endorsement further shows that the first copy which was issued on 20.07.2010 was delivered to him and the duplicate copy thereafter was obtained by the Applicant/Appellant on 30.08.2010.  Therefore, the delay ought to have been counted from 20.07.2010 to meet this application for recalling the order, in other words for restoration. 

     The reasons mentioned seeking condonation of delay, relevant for the purpose of decision of this application for condonation of delay are contained in paragraphs nos. 7 to 11.  It first contended that impugned order received by the Applicant/Appellant on 13.08.2010 when it received a notice in execution application u/sec 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Thereafter, it is pleaded that mother of the Applicant – Ms.Anagha was hospitalized due to her ailment and therefore, she could not take immediate steps and thereafter she herself hospitalized since April, 2010.  Then it is further stated that from 01.09.2010 she was not keeping well again.  It is contended that on 30^th August, 2010 she obtained the certified copy and then made this application.

     Though it is not expected to go too technically to scan reasons given to explain the delay on day-to-day but it is reasonably expected that the delay should be properly explained.  The delay is tried to be explained making statement that the applicant/Appellant’s mother was ill and hospitalized.  The statement is vague and does not show that the applicant was so circumtised that it was not possible for her to attend her routine life or there exists circumstances (no statement including such circumstances is made) from which it could be reasonably inferred that it was really not possible for her to take steps to file the application in time.   Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that this enormous delay is not at all satisfactorily explained.  Reasons mentioned for so called delay are not at all convincing.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

       (ii)          In the result Misc.Application No.539/2010 for restoration, viz. the recalling the order dismissing the appeal in default is not maintainable.