Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President
Heard Adv. Anand Dubey on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant on the application for condonation of delay.
[2] Appeal bearing No.692 of 2011 is directed as against the order dated 31/3/2011 passed by the Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.448 of 2010. There is an alleged delay of 48 days on the part of the Applicant/Appellant in preferring this appeal and, therefore, to seek condonation of delay the Applicant/Appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application No.419 of 2011. In the application for condonation of delay the Applicant/Appellant has contended that though the complaint was decided on 31/3/2011, it was decided ex-parte and that the Applicant/Appellant received information about the said decision from the news item which was published in Daily ‘Sakal’ dated 4/6/2011 and thereafter, appeal was presented on 8/8/2011 after receipt of certified copy of the impugned order on 15/7/2011 and, therefore, delay in filing appeal may be condoned.
[3] It is to be noted that contention as to whether the complaint was rightly decided ex-parte or not is not being considered at this stage because that aspect will be considered in case the appeal is admitted. At this stage we have to consider as to whether after the decision of the complaint when the Applicant/Appellant received information and after receipt of information whether the Applicant/Appellant has filed the appeal in time. Admittedly, consumer complaint was decided on 31/3/2011. However, the Applicant/Appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 30/6/2011. Perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order reveals that free copy of the order as per the Rules framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dispatched by the Forum under Outward No.848 of 2011 on 21/5/2011. What happened with this free copy is not being explained. What is important to be noted is the fact that the address of the Applicant/Appellant is correct and there is no dispute about the same. So, rightly addressed free copy was sent to the Applicant/Appellant on 21/5/2011 and the Applicant/Appellant is not explaining as to what happened to the said free copy. Secondly, even assuming for a moment that the Applicant/Appellant came to know about the decision of the District Forum by a news item published in Daily ‘Sakal’ dated 4/6/2011 then, the Applicant/Appellant should have immediately applied for certified copy within a period of one or two days there-from. However, the Applicant/Appellant applied for certified copy on 30/6/2011 practically after 26 days after receiving the knowledge. That shows that the Applicant/Appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the remedy. These are old tactics to remain absent before the District Forum and to seek remand of such matters so as to harass the consumers. In fact, when our own record shows that service was done and there was no dispute over the address of the Applicant/Appellant, it was for the Applicant/Appellant to explain the delay properly. Thus, this is not a fit case for condonation of delay. However, since this is a first appeal we desire to give one opportunity to the Applicant/Appellant subject to payment of certain costs to the Non-Applicants/Respondents
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.419 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.692 of 2011 is hereby allowed. Consequently delay in filing appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `10,000/- by the Applicant/Appellant to the Non-Applicants/Respondents within a period of 15 days from today and failing which without any further reference to this Commission the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed as time-barred.
Pronounced and dictated on 03rd May, 2012
