Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President
Heard Mr.S.S.Deshmukh-Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.N.H.Lahoti-Advocate for the respondent.
This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik in consumer complaint no.10/2010 on 25/11/2010. Complaint has been allowed and as against the said order appeal has been preferred. Complaint was decided on 25/11/2010 and on the same day copies were given to the appellant. However, appellant did not prefer appeal within time and there is delay of 60 days in filing the appeal.
Ground stated in the delay condonation application is that papers were handed over to the advocate who was on record. However, said advocate returned the papers on 05/02/2011 and, thereafter, the company had taken a decision to file an appeal and the papers were handed over to the present advocate on 17/02/2011 and thereafter appeal has been filed. Surprisingly, in support of this application, affidavit has been filed. However, said ground has not been made and substantiated in the affidavit by the Insurance company. Apart from that in the application the name of the advocate is not disclosed to whom the papers were handed over and/or advocate who was on record of the Insurance company. Apart from that, last time we directed orally to the advocate for the appellant that he shall produce the correspondence between the Insurance company and the advocate. However, said correspondence has also not been produced on record. We also find that there is actual delay of 65 days and not of 60 days. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we find that the application has been casually made making allegations against earlier advocate without naming the advocate. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in the delay condonation application. Misc.Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. In view of rejection of delay condonation application, appeal stands rejected.
Pronounced on 23rd August, 2011.
