(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) Heard both the parties on the application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.163/09, Sharad Wayal Vs. Mr.Rahul Anshuman & ors., passed by Addl.District Forum, Pune (‘the forum’ in short). Hence, this application for condonation of delay is made. (2) The copy of impugned order was received by the applicant/appellant on 06/12/2010 and the appeal is preferred along with this application on 11/02/2011. Therefore, actual delay could be 36 days. To explain this delay, in the para 3 of the application, certain statements are made. The relevant statement is to the effect that after receipt of copy of the order, the matter was referred to the higher authorities for instructions who realized that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus, according to them impugned order is erroneous one. Thereafter, they filed this appeal. Other statement is in respect of sending information to the CIBIL about the default committed by the respondent. On last date, the applicant/appellant asked for time to explain the delay either by producing file or by filing an affidavit explaining delay caused. Today, an affidavit of one V.Mahadevan is filed, but said affidavit also does not explain scenario referring to the relevant dates constituting the delay and why the delay occurred. Under the circumstances, the applicant/appellant failed to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay caused. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order. ORDER (1) The application for condonation of delay bearing No.78/11 stands dismissed and in the result, the appeal bearing No.132/11 is not entertained. (2) Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. Pronounced on 31st July, 2012. |
