Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Adv. Mr.S.R.Singh for applicant / appellant present.  Adv. Mr Santosh Patil for opponent / respondent present.  He files Vakalatnama.  Taken on record.

Heard both sides.  There is a delay of 32 days and therefore, this application for condonation of delay is filed.

In para 2 of the application, the reason of delay is explained. It is stated that on receiving the certified copy of impugned order dtd. 11.10.2010 on 14.10.2010, it was forwarded to their office at Pune with advice to prefer an appeal. Thereafter the order alongwith claim file forwarded to its Mumbai Office. Taking the instruction from Advocate and taking the decision for filing the appeal, various level offices of the applicant / appellant are involved. It is also mentioned that ultimately after taking the decision for filing the appeal, applicant had to follow certain formalities such as obtaining pay order for deposit u/Sec.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which consumed further time.  Thus, the delay of 32 days is explained. In support of this application applicant / appellant has filed an affidavit of Mrs. Pallavi Sunil Rathod, Asstt. Manager (Legal) of the applicant / appellant.

There is no counter to it.  Therefore, we find the delay in filing the appeal is satisfactorily explained and we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

1.                 Application of delay condonation is allowed.

2.                 Delay stands condoned subject to payment of `5,000/- to the opponent / respondent within 30 days from today.  If not paid, without further reference to the Commission, the application for delay condonation shall stand automatically dismissed. 

3.                 The matter be listed after due compliance as aforesaid for admission on 24.08.2011.

          Pronounced on 28.03.2011.

sj