Heard advocate Mr. Pathak on the point of delay condonation application. He submitted that there has been a delay of around 100 days in filing the present appeal. He has also filed an affidavit on behalf of appellant to justify the delay. He submitted  that after the receipt of the impugned order on 10/2/12. It was sent by appellant to their regional office from where it was sent to their law officer who gave his opinion in the second week of March 2012. After that  the request was made to their regional office to sanction to file the appeal in the last week of March. Then the appeal was given to panel advocate to file the appeal who could not file the appeal in the month of May because of vacation to the Commission. Therefore the appeal was filed on 18/6/2012 by the new advocate after the receipt of appeal. He stated that the appellant has a strong case and has made sincere efforts to file the appeal. However the unavoidable delay took place due to the procedure of sanction and legal opinion. Hence the delay be condoned.

The respondent submitted his say stating that the appellant has not justified the delay on day to day basis and has caused the delay by sending the impugned order to the regional office before taking the legal opinion. The grounds raised are not justifiable and are only cited to justify the delay. He also relied on the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Consumer Commission in LIC Vs. Saniya Mohd. Haji Harun in which the Hon’ble Commission held that considering the present conveyance and communication facilities. There could not be a difficulty in sending papers from one department to another and a mere contention that due to procedural aspect the delay of 49 days was caused  cannot be a just and reasonable ground to condone the delay. Hence application is rejected.

            I considered the contention of appellant and counter by the respondent. I find the delay is only balanced on vague statements and reasons of taking opinion and permission from the regional office and summer vacation of the Commission. The appellant is a organized corporate body with well defined hierarchy and system. It was therefore certainly necessary for them to promptly attempt to various requirements to file the appeal in a period of limitation. Even otherwise also such an inordinate delay of almost 100 days on unspecific and abstract grounds shall not be justifiable and would also cause unnecessary hassles to the respondent who is a individual. Hence the delay is unpardonable.

            On the background the reasons discussed above, I do not find any serious and reasonable materials in the application for condonation of delay by the appellant and hence I decide to reject it. Thus, the application for condonation stands rejected. In the event the appeal is dismissed.