09/12/14

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT       

            This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 175 days in filing this Appeal.

            It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the Learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment on 29/07/13.  On 11/09/13 the application was filed for obtaining the certified copy.  Thereafter departmental opinion was sought for approval to file Appeal and the same was filed on 21/02/14. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that due to departmental procedure the delay occurred in connection with obtaining the approval from the higher authority for filing this Appeal.  It is submitted that the delay was not intentional and it should be condoned in the interest of justice. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has opposed the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides.  It appears that the Learned District Forum delivered judgment on 29/07/13 and on 11/09/13 the certified copy was applied for and on the same date it was delivered.  The main contention of the Appellant is that due to departmental procedure the delay occurred in obtaining the approval for filing the Appeal.  We are of the considered view that such an explanation is not acceptable, especially in view of the fact that the complaint was allowed on contest on 29/07/13 and the application for certified copy was filed on 11/09/13.  There is no reasonable explanation for such delay in filing the application for certified copy.

            The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has been pleased to observe as follows:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”

            Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the considered view that the delay of 175 days has not been sufficiently explained. 

             The petition for condonation of delay is rejected.  Consequently, the Appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.