Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Sanjay R. Bhosale on behalf of the Applicant/ Appellant and Mr. Nitin Chhazed, husband of the Non-Applicant/ Respondent on the application for condonation of delay.
[2] There is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal and hence this application for condonation of delay.
[3] It is alleged on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant that the copy of the impugned order dated 3/11/2010, passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.898 of 2009, Smt. Meenu Chhazed Vs. Western Railways, which was sent through post, was never received by the Applicant/Appellant and after getting the knowledge of the impugned order on 20/12/2010, the Applicant/Appellant immediately preferred an application to the Forum for supply of certified copy and thereafter, appeal was preferred on 17/1/2011. Considering this aspect, we find that the aspect of delay is satisfactorily clarified.
[4] However, Mr. Nitin Chhazed, authorized representative of the Non-Applicant/Respondent, invited our attention to the fact that there was a paper publication of this impugned order in the Daily ‘Times of India’ edition dated 11/12/2010 and, therefore, according to him, the Applicant/Appellant must have received information about the impugned order on such publication. Even if we assume the correctness of such statement, the delay calculated on this basis would be of 06 days and not of 23 days, as alleged by the Applicant/Appellant. Such delay is unintentional and no malafides could be attributed to the Applicant/Appellant. Thus, the delay is satisfactorily explained. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.69 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in Appeal No.116 of 2011 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the delay in filing appeal stands condoned.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 22nd November, 2011
