Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member Today, when the matter is called out, both the parties are found absent. [2] There is a delay in filing the appeal and hence this application for condonation of delay. As per the statement made in the application, copy of the impugned order dated 7/10/2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.343 of 2008, Mr. Kashinath Vitthal Khule Vs. Junior Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr.; was received by the Applicant/Appellant on 15/11/2009 and thereafter, due to some administrative problems the Applicant/Appellant took some time in taking a decision about filing of the appeal. It was followed by Christmas vacations during the period 20/12/2009 to 3/1/2010 and thereafter, appeal could be preferred alongwith delay condonation application. As per the endorsement made on the docket, this appeal is filed on 20/1/2010. Thus, the delay is about 37 days. The reasons mentioned explaining the delay to which reference is made earlier are quite vague and not convincing. Therefore, we find that the delay is not satisfactorily explained. [3] The appeal is preferred by the Applicant/Appellant, which is a company, who is not a party in original proceedings, alleging that it is aggrieved by the impugned order, but how it is aggrieved by the impugned order is not stated. The impugned order directed the original Opponents in the consumer complaint, namely – the Junior Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Applicant/Appellant Company, to pay compensation of `68,000/- to the Non-Applicant/Respondent, who is the original Complainant. So, it is an order against individual officials and not against the Appellant Company. Applicant/ Appellant Company was not even a party to the original consumer complaint. The Applicant/Appellant Company and its officials or employees are separate and distinct juridic persons within the meaning of Section-2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [4] Besides this, by and large, the Applicant/Appellant and its counsel on the record are remaining absent. They also failed to comply with the orders of the State Commission particularly, directions dated 28/7/2010 and 12/7/2011 to pay the costs awarded (`1,000/- and `1,500/- respectively). [5] For the reasons stated above, we find no merits in the application for condonation of delay and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:- ORDER Miscellaneous application No.36 of 2010, seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.92 of 2010, hereby stands dismissed. In the result the appeal is not entertained and stands disposed of as time-barred. Pronounced and dictated on 15th November, 2011. |
