(Passed on 05.11.2012)
THE ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR DELAY CONDONATION IN APPEAL NO.A/07/886
Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of delay for more than 145 days which was caused in preferring the appeal against the judgement & order dtd.08.01.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gondia in Consumer Complaint No. CC/05/56.
2. We heard Adv. Mr P Dahat for the applicant / appellant, Adv. Mr H N Verma for non-applicant / respondent No.4 and Mr Mirza, authorised person of non-applicant / respondent No.5. We have also perused the application under order, copy of impugned judgement & order and also other documents on record.
3. It is submitted by Adv. Mr Dahat for the application / appellant that there was such delay in filing the appeal as audit of the bank was going on for about four months. It is further submitted that due to oversight applicant could not file this appeal in time. It is further submitted that the applicant / appellant was not aware about the date of passing the impugned judgement & order till the date of its receipt i.e. on 23.05.2007. On this ground it is submitted to condone the delay. Adv. Mr Dahat also submitted that the applicant had filed some other appeals on the same ground, which are already allowed by this Commission.
4. Per contra, Adv. Mr Verma for no-applicant / respondent No.4 submitted that there is no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay. According to him the applicant – bank was well aware about pendency of Consumer Complaint and also the date of decision of the impugned judgement & order. It is submitted that the applicant – bank intentionally avoided to appear and resist the complaint before the Forum, though it was duly served with complaint notice. It is submitted to dismiss the application.
5. Undisputedly, there was more than 145 days’ delay. According to Mr Verma, Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant / respondent No.4, there was about 9 months delay. He has submitted that the bank was aware about the pendency of Consumer Complaint; but it did not contest the complaint and therefore, the complaint came to be proceeded exparte against it.
6. On perusal of the copy of impugned judgement & order, we find much force in the submission of Adv. Mr Verma for the non-applicant / respondent No.4. However, Adv. Mr Dahat for the applicant submitted that the complaint notice was not received to the applicant – bank and therefore, the impugned judgement & order came to be passed exparte. But we find no force in the submission of Adv. Mr Dahat. As stated earlier, copy of letter dtd.21.12.2005 itself falsify the submission of Adv. Mr Dahat, so also the copy of impugned judgement & order reflects that the applicant – bank was duly served with complaint notice but it failed to appear before the Forum and contest the complaint.
7. True it is that the applicant bank had filed some other appeals against the same non-applicants and those appeals were decided by this Commission on merit. It is also admitted fact that though the appeals, which are decided by this Commission, were involved identical issues; this cannot be a ground to condone such inordinate delay. Therefore, the submission of Adv. Mr Dahat that some identical matters are already decided by this Commission and there fore this application for condonation of delay may be allowed, cannot be accepted.
8. As far as the contention of the applicant that due to audit of the bank appellant could not file the appeal in time, also cannot be considered although the audit was going on for four months as per the submission of Adv. Mr Dahat, there is no explanation as to why this appeal was not filed immediately after completion of audit. Even the audit period cannot be considered for condoning such inordinate delay. Though the audit of applicant – bank was going on, there could be no difficulty for the bank officials to file the appeal in time, getting approval of its Head Office.
9. Moreover, Adv. Mr Dahat submitted that due to oversight the appeal could not be filed in time. This fact itself falsify the contention of the applicant that due to audit work the applicant could not file the appeal in time. This fact shows that the appellant itself is not certain about the cause of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, such vague grounds cannot be considered for condonation of such inordinate delay.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
ii. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/07/886 is dismissed.
iii. No order as to cost.
iv. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
