(Delivered on 22/08/2017)

PER SHRI B. A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Advocate  Mr. S.N. Shelke is present for the  appellant.  Advocate  Mr. Azamat Shah is present for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. We have heard both the advocates  on the application made for condonation  of delay by the appellant,  that occurred  in filing of this  appeal.  The learned advocate of the appellant today filed separate pursis stating therein that the delay is of 211 days.  The respondent’s advocate has opposed the condonation of the said delay by filing reply.

 2.         The learned advocate of the appellant explained the said delay on the lines of the submission  made  in the  application  made for condonation  of delay. The said explanation  in brief  is  as under.

            The previous  advocate of the appellant  did not inform  the appellant herein  /original complainant about the progress made  in the complaint and  also about dismissal in default  of the said  complaint. As the previous advocate did not inform  the appellant,  the delay of 211 days  is occurred in filing of appeal. He therefore, requested that  as the delay was  occurred  because of the default  on the part of the appellant’s advocate  in not informing the final  decision of the complaint, it may be condoned to meet the ends of justice.

 3.         On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent submitted that day to day delay is not explained and no document is filed  in support of the application  for condonation of delay. He also argued that the explanation given by the appellant for condonation of delay is not sufficient and satisfactory and therefore, the application may be rejected.

 4.         We find that the impugned order was passed on 09/06/2014 and hence  appeal ought to have been filed on or before  09/07/2014. However, the appeal was filed on 09/02/2015. Thus there is actual delay of 214 days in filing of the appeal.  Advocate of the appellant has submitted that the application for certified copy was made on 02/02/2015 and the said certified copy was received by the appellant on 06/02/2015. Advocate of the appellant further submitted that  as free copy of the impugned was not received by the appellant, the certified copy was subsequently obtained.  We find that  the endorsement  made on the certified copy of the impugned order shows that  first free copy of the  impugned order was given  on 24/07/2014 and second  certified copy was given on 06/02/2015 which cannot  be disbelieved.

 5.         We also find that  the complaint bearing No. 67/2012 was dismissed  in default  on 09/06/2014 as none appeared for the complainant  on  previous so may dates of hearing.

 6.         In our view, it was also responsibility of the original complainant /appellant to remain in touch  with his advocate when he filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum.  The appellant cannot claim condonation of delay for such long period of 211 days simply on the ground that his advocate did not intimate him about  progress of the complaint and about its  dismissal  in default.  Thus we find that such a long delay of 211 days cannot be condoned for  aforesaid  unsatisfactory reasons given in the application for condonation of delay.

 7.         It was also the responsibility of the complainant to be deligent in  prosecution  of the  complaint and as he failed to do so, we find that explanations given  in the application for condonation of delay  is  neither sufficient nor convincing.

 8.         We also find that  the application made  for condonation of delay  does not show  as to actually on which  particular  date the advocate of the  appellant remained  absent before the  District Forum and on which  particular date the appellant  learnt about  dismissal of the complaint  in default. Thus said application  is vague.

 9.         We also find that  such long delay of 211 days  if condoned without  satisfactory  reason then it will   defeat the very object  of  expeditious disposal of complaint  & appeal within  statutory period as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the result  we hold that  the application made for condonation  of delay deserves to be  rejected.

ORDER

i.          The application made for condonation of delay  is rejected.

ii.          The appeal is  dismissed as time barred.

iii.         No order as to cost in  appeal.

iv.        Copy  of order be furnished  to both the parties, free of cost.