By Mr. Sushil Kr. Sarma, Member,      

                        The applicant/petitioner has filed an application under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 for condonation of delay of 269 days in preferring the appeal against the  judgment dated 26.09.2027 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Kamrup Guwahati in  C.C No.62/2015.

 The petitioner has stated that though the judgment was passed on 26.09.2017 but the certified copy of judgment could not be obtained immediately due to puja vacation and after the puja vacation applied for the certified copy  and there was 20 days delay in providing the legal opinion  along with the copy of the judgment. As the opinion was given for filing appeal, the Divisional Office at Panbazar, Guwahati  of the petitioner prepared the file  and sent to the Guwahati  Regional Office on 22.11.2017. There after the file was handed over to the counsel on 30.11.2017 with the approval of the competent officer. The appeal was ready for filing on 07.12.2017 ,but the cheque for statutory deposit was received on 14.03.2018 The filing section of the commission did not accept the cheque  due to the fact that cheques are not accepted by the commission. The Registrar of the Commission vide letter dated 02.04.2018 explained the reason not accepting the cheque. Thereafter another cheque was also presented for filing the appeal and the same was also rejected and then only on 21.07.2018 the draft for statutory  deposit was handed over the counsel and the same was filed along with the appeal memo on 23.07.2018. It is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the applicant and submitted to condone the delay in preferring the appeal.

                            The opposite party has submitted written objection and stated that the applicant has failed to explain the sufficient cause for condonation of delay and submitted to reject the petition.

Ms. C. Mazumdar , learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the file of the applicant proceeded through different table of  different office like Divisional Office, Regional Office etc. of the applicant. So there was some delay in presenting the appeal. Again as the cheque was not accepted by the Commission towards the statutory deposit and thus also occurred some delay and these delay was not intentional and there are sufficient cause for condonation of delay and submitted  to condon the delay of 269 days in preferring the appeal.

                        Ms. Mazumdar has referred the citation 2015 STPL 3329 SC ,Executive Officer ,Antiyur Town Panchyat vs. G.Arumugam(D) by Lrs, 2005 STPL 6879 SC State of Nagaland Vs. Lipokao and others.

Mr. S.Sarma , counsel for the opposite party has  submitted that the mandatory period of preferring an appeal is 30 days but there is 269  days delay in preferring the delay and the cause shown in the petition is not sufficient for condonation of delay and submitted to reject the petition.

Perused the record.

In the present case , as the petitioner is a company, so no doubt there is some delay in filing the appeal as the file was proceeded through different table of different office of the petitioner . Under such a situation  explanation every day delay is also not necessary. But in the instant case ,the applicant initially deposited the statutory deposit by way of cheque   and the same was rejected by the Commission   and vide   letter dated 02.04.2018  the Administrative Officer cum Registrar of this Commission informed the applicant that as per the mandate of Rule 9A(1) money is to paid in filing of appeal  in the form of  crossed demand draft . (Annexure 3).Inspite of that the applicant deposited another cheque for the same and that was also rejected and then deposited the draft dated 21.07.2018 . This reveals that the applicant having the knowledge about the procedure of statutory deposit on 02.04.2018 again deposited another cheque and after refusal of the same only deposited the draft. So explanation of the delay  in filing the appeal is not proper and sufficient and the petition is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected and this

Misc. Case is dismissed.

No cost.