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

Heard Ld.Counsel Mr.Kush Dhawan appearing for the Applicant/Appellant.  Non-Applicant/Respondent absent.

There is alleged delay of 68 days in filing this appeal and therefore, this application for condonation of delay is filed.  The delay is tried to be explained in the following words:

“The petitioner submits that the delay I filing of the said appeal is unintentional.  The Petitioners have to go through various procedures before filing of the appeal.  After the order was received by the Advocate the same was sent to the Appellants branch office.  Thereafter the branch office sent the same for the approval of the Regional Office at.  There was closing of accounts in the month of March.  Hence, time was taken for preparation of Banker Cheque towards depositing.  In the meantime the file was also missing and time was taken for tracing the same.  The said Bankers cheque was received by the Appellants Advocate only. Thereafter appeal could be prepared.  In between there was May vacation also.  The petitioners are afraid that now this award is likely to be executed by the Respondents.” 

Mere perusal of this very statement explaining delay would show that this application is made for the sake of application only without giving the facts necessary to be stated e.g. as to when the copy of the impugned order was received, about the movement of the file etc.  The statements contained are vague.  When Advocate forwarded the copy received by him to the Branch Office, when Branch office forwarded the same to the Regional Office and as to when the demand draft required to be prepared as per Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was asked for and when it was received and how much time was taken at the Advocate’s level to prepare the appeal is not made clear.  Certified copy of the impugned order produced on record shows that the copy was issued on 26.02.2009.  The appeal is filed on 11.06.2009 and therefore, the delay would be of 105 days and not 65 days as alleged.  This shows that the delay caused is not at all explained.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E R

                (i)                 Misc.Application No.958/2009 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

              (ii)                 In the result, Appeal No.834/2009 is not entertained.

            (iii)                 No order as to costs.

Pronounced on 3^rd May, 2011.