Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:- Adv.Ms.Deepti Dhake files authority letter issued by Khare Legal Chambers for appellant. Advocate Shri S.R.Page for respondent files short reply to the application for condonation of delay- taken on record. This application for condonation of delay is filed by the applicant/appellant while filing appeal nos. 156 to 158/2010 against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint nos. 114,116 & 115/2004 repectively. By allowing these consumer complaints partly, the Forum below has directed M/s.Voltas Ltd./ respondent to take back the defective A.C. supplied to the complainant and give back the price of Rs.15,075/- to all the complainants within period of two months, failing which interest @9% p.a. will be charged. Forum below also awarded Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and also cost of Rs.1,000/- in each complaint was awarded. Aggrieved by this order, the appeals have been filed by opp.party/M/s. Voltas Ltd. In filing these appeals there is delay of 85 days. By this common order, we are disposing of these miscellaneous applications filed for condonation of delay filed in all the three separate appeals. In all the three appeals, for condonation of delay the only ground mentioned is that there was Diwali vacation and Christmas vacation and therefore, appeals could not be filed. However, applicant/appellant has forgotten that there were some working days in between more than one month. During that period of one month at least the appellant could have filed appeals challenging the award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In our view mentioning a cause that there were two intervening vacations is not sufficient cause within meaning of Section 24-A proviso of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to allow delay condonation application. What is pertinent to know is the fact that Adv.S.R.Page in all the three appeals pointed out that there is no prayer seeking condonation of delay. In prayer clause it has been simply mentioned that appellant ought to be permitted to file this appeal and any such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted. This was the appellant’s prayer. So, there is no clear cut prayer in the prayer clause that delay should be condoned in the interest of justice. There is no prayer that delay of 85 days should be condoned. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay. As, such we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. M.A.Nos.63 to 65/2010 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently, appeals does not survive for consideration. 3. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
