Per Shri P.B. Joshi, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Deepa S. Kulkarni, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. Mr.Digambar Thakare, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent files Vakalatnama on record. He also files written say to the delay condonation application on record. Copy of the same is served to the other side. Application is moved for condonation of delay. Non-applicant/respondent has strongly opposed the application by filing say.
2. From the record and submissions made before me, it is clear that notice of the complaint No.16/2014 was served on the appellant/org. opponent. Appellant/opponent remained absent. Matter proceeded ex-parte and it was decided on 16/05/2014. Copy of the order was sent to the appellant/org. opponent and it was received by the appellant/opponent on 17/06/2014. Thereafter, execution was started. Notice of execution was served on this appellant on 27/11/2014. Thereafter, this applicant/appellant obtained necessary copies and filed the appeal and as per this applicant/appellant there is delay of 190 days in filing appeal. It is submitted that copy of the order was received by Mumbai Office and it was given to the Advocate and then other documents were collected and appeal was filed. Officers of the appellant were transferred and that is why there was delay and hence, it may be condoned. Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent has strongly opposed the application.
3. From the record itself, it is very clear that notice of complaint was served on the appellant/org. opponent and in spite of that appellant/org. opponent preferred to remain absent and allow the matter to proceed ex-parte and the matter was decided ex-parte. Copy of the order was sent by District Forum to the appellant/org. opponent and that was received on 17/06/2014. Even thereafter, no steps were taken by the appellant/org. opponent for preferring any appeal. First opportunity for the org. opponent/appellant to remain present in the complaint to contest the matter was not availed and therefore, matter proceeded ex-parte. During pendency of the complaint, there was opportunity for the org. opponent to knock the doors of this Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order and allow this appellant to participate in the proceeding. That was also not done. After decision of the complaint, copy of that order was sent to the org. opponent/appellant which was received on 17/06/2014. Even thereafter, nothing was done by this appellant. When the execution was started and notice of execution was served on the appellant, then instead of complying the order passed by the District Forum, this appeal has been filed with the contention that there is delay of 190 days, which was calculated from the date 17/06/2014. As the notice of original complaint was admittedly served on this appellant, it is presumed that appellant/org. opponent knew about proceeding and therefore, calculating from the date of order, there is delay of 220 days.
4. Considering the inaction of the appellant/org. opponent from time to time by not appearing in the complaint in spite of service of notice, not taking any steps by moving this Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order and participating in the proceeding and not taking immediate steps even after service of copy of the order of the District Forum, which only shows that applicant/appellant is only trying to protract the matter by filing appeal instead of complying the order of the District Forum. In these circumstances, I find that application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed. Hence, the order:-
-: ORDER :-
1.Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.
2.Parties to bear their own costs.
3.One set of the appeal compilation be retained and rest of the sets be returned to the appellant.
4.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 20th April 2015.
