Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard, Adv. A. S. Vidyarthi, on behalf of the Appellant/ Applicant, Adv. P. M. Raisinghani, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Adv. Sandhya Nanavare, on behalf of the Respondent No.2, namely – Canara Bank on the delay condonation application.
[2] In filing appeal bearing No.A/11/177, there is a delay of 50 days and to seek condonation of delay of the said period, present miscellaneous application is filed. In the application for condonation of delay, the Appellant/Applicant has mentioned in paragraphs (04), (05) & (06) thereof, the circumstances which delayed filing of the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The Appellant/Applicant has mentioned that after receipt of the impugned order from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Appellant/Applicant had written to its regional office seeking advice as to whether to file an appeal or not. Then, there was further internal correspondence and the Appellant/Applicant had also written to the Respondent No.2, namely – Canara Bank, asking whether the Respondent No.1/original Complainant had informed the change of address to the Canara Bank and in turn, to the Appellant/Applicant Insurance Company. The Appellant/ Applicant has also mentioned that the pay order for an amount of `25,000/-, which was required to be deposited under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at the time of filing of the appeal was got prepared by the Appellant/Applicant by taking the pay-order from the Axis Bank, whereas the office of the State Commission told the concerned officials of the Appellant/ Applicant that a pay-order of only nationalized banks is accepted in the State Commission. Therefore, the Appellant/Applicant was required to get the approval of its higher officers for procuring a demand draft from a nationalized bank and in the process there has been a delay of 50 days in filing of this appeal. Application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit. So, relying on the pleadings from the delay condonation application, supported by an affidavit, we are of the view that Appellant/Applicant has successfully explained delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and as such, delay is required to be condoned in the circumstances obtainable. Of course, Learned Counsel for the Non-Applicant/ Respondent No.1 vehemently submitted before us that the application for condonation of delay should not be allowed. However, we want to decide the appeal on merits, and therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay by allowing this application of course, subject to payment of some costs.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.99 of 2011, seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.177 of 2011 is hereby allowed subject to payment of costs of `1,000/- by the Appellant/Applicant to each Non-Applicant/Respondents.
Pronounced & dictated on 9th September, 2011.
