Date : 23.11.2012.

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       Adv.Shri.D.E.Padwale present for appellant.  Notice issued to respondent by Speed Post A.D. has been delivered to respondent as seen from it`s report obtained by registry on internet and placed it before us. Despite service of notice respondent has not appeared.

2.       We have heard Adv.Shri.D.E.Padwale on delay condonation application.  There is 635 days delay in preferring appeal. Advocate of appellant submits that advocate appointed by appellant No.2 in the original complaint did not give any intimation to the appellants about the decision given in the complaint and that when in the first week of August 2012, appellant No.2 in routine course had visited his advocate to know progress of the complaint, his advocate informed him that complaint has been dismissed by Dist.Forum.  He further submitted that thereafter appellant No.2 requested  his said advocate to obtain certified copy of impugned judgment and order but his advocate said that he is now practising at Civil Court Khultabad and is not working in Consumer Forum and therefore  he does not get time to obtain the copy of judgment. He further submitted that appellant thereafter engaged another advocate to obtain certified copy of that order and accordingly application was made on 08.08.2012 and after receiving the said copy, appellants learnt that complaint has been dismissed on 28.10.2010.  He further submits that thereafter appellant No.2 approached to him i.e. present advocate for filing appeal on 10.8.2012.  He further submits that at that time appellants learnt that period of limitation has already been over and that copies of the complaint, other documents and affidavit were also to be obtained from Dist.Forum for filing appeal. He further submits that thereafter the appellants approached to advocate who had appeared in the original complaint for obtaining the said documents and that the said advocate told them to come after Ramzan festival i.e. after 20.8.2012 as he will have to search  his record  of disposed files.  He further submits that thereafter appellants again visited said previous advocate on 22.8.2012 who handed over the file and then said papers were handed over to the present advocate to prepare appeal and to file it. He further submits that due to aforesaid reasons the delay of 635 days has been occurred.  Thus, it is requested  by the appellant`s advocate that said delay may be condoned as appellants should not be made to suffer due to lapse on the part of their previous advocate in not informing decision of the original complaint.

3.       We have considered aforesaid submission made by appellant`s advocate.  We have also perused the papers placed before us. It is seen from the certified copy of impugned judgment and order that free copy of the same was sent to the appellants by Dist.Forum below on 2.12.2010 by post.  It is not pleaded by the appellants as to whether said free copy is received by them.  Moreover no submission is made before this Commission about the said free copy sent by Dist.Forum below to the appellant.  Explanation is given in this application only to the effect that previous advocate did not inform the appellants about the decision of the original complaint and hence the delay has been occurred. It is not stated in the application as to what steps are taken by appellant against the said erring advocate. Moreover without any pleading and supporting evidence it cannot be accepted that appellants did not receive the aforesaid free copy sent by Dist.Forum below on 2.12.2010. Moreover in the absence of any cogent material it cannot be said that appellant was not aware of the decision given by Dist.Forum below on 28.10.2010. In our view mere making of statement on affidavit that advocate did not make aware about the decision is not sufficient in the  background of inordinate delay of 635 days occurred in preferring appeal.  We thus find that the delay of 635 days is not properly explained by the appellants. Hence we are not inclined to condone the delay.  Accordingly following order is passed.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Misc.application No.217/2012 filed for condonation of delay by the appellant is hereby rejected.

2.     Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.

3.     No order as to cost.

4.     Copies of the order be issued to both the parties.

Pronounced and dictated on 23.11.2012.