20.01.2017
HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, PRESIDING MEMBER
The petition for condonation of delay is taken up for order.
The pertinent facts of the case are that the impugned judgment and order was passed by the Ld. District Forum on 11.4.2016 in Complaint Case No. 449/2014 and the instant Appeal was filed on 21.6.2016 after getting certified copy on 31.5.2016 for which the application was made on 31.5.2016, although the free copy of the impugned judgment and order was issued to the Appellants on 13.4.2016 as evident from the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order. The records also reveal that the Appellants/OPs did not contest the case before the Ld. District Forum despite appearance of the Ld. Advocates on 26.9.2014 and 6.2.2015 on their behalf.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs submits that the Appellants/OPs received only on 9.5.2016 the information about passing ex parte of the order impugned. Thereafter, the Appellants/OPs filed on 31.5.2016 the application for certified copy of the said order and took delivery of the same on the same date.
The Ld. Advocate also submits that after receiving the certified copy on 31.5.2016 the Appellants/OPs contacted the Ld. Advocate who filed this Appeal on 21.6.2016, upon re-opening of the court after summer vacation, observing usual procedural formalities.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that as there was no intentional delay, so the delay of 39 days should be condoned and the instant Appeal be admitted or else the Appellants/OPs would suffer irreparable loss.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order as accompanying the Memo of Appeal exhibits that the free copy of the impugned judgment and order was issued to the Appellants/OPs on 13.4.2016 and hence, the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs in respect of gathering knowledge about passing of the impugned judgment and order first on 9.5.2016 is misleading.
The Ld. Advocate also submits that apart from the above misleading submission, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs has submitted further misleading information about filing of the instant Appeal after ‘summer vacation’ of the Consumer Court, as there is no summer vacation at the Consumer Fora.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that after receiving the certified copy on 31.5.2016 the Appellants/OPs delayed unnecessarily in filing the Appeal on 21.6.2016.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that as the aforesaid submission clearly indicates that there was absence of diligence on the part of the Appellants/OPs and as the day-to-day delay has not been sufficiently explained, so the delay in filing the instant Appeal should not be condoned and the same should be dismissed.
The certified copy of the impugned judgment and order, as available on records, reveals that the free-copy of the impugned judgment and order was issued to the Appellants/OPs on 13.4.2016, which stands uncontroverted by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OPs. The materials on record further reveal that the Appellants/OPs filed the instant Appeal on 21.6.2016 after receiving the certified copy on 31.5.2016 for which application was made on 31.5.2016 after issuance of free-copy of the impugned judgment and order on 13.4.2016. All those materials clearly indicate the absence of diligence in filing the instant Appeal on the part of the Appellants/OPs as well as absence of sufficient explanation of day-to-day delay in filing the instant Appeal.
In this context, reference may be cited to a decision dated 17.12.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with the SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein the delay of only 13 days was not condoned.
In view of the foregoing facts and observation, the prayer for condonation of delay of 39 days is rejected and the instant Appeal stands dismissed for being time-barred.
