Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Advocate Ms.Amrita Iyer, files vakalatnama on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent. Taken on record. Heard both sides on delay condonation application.
(2) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai dated 19.01.2011. Against the dismissal of the complaint the appellant/original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(3) In filing this appeal there is delay of 67 days. In delay condonation application it has been mentioned that the appellant was out of station on account of marriage ceremony of the daughter of his brother at Kadegaon, Dist.Sangli and further, on account of hospitalization of his son Mast.Aatish in the Sai Hospital, at Chembur, he could not challenge the impugned order dated 19.01.2011 though he had received the copy of the impugned order on 21.04.2011. But there is no supporting document in respect of these two points mentioned in the delay condonation application. Affidavit on these points is also silent. In affidavit, it is simply mentioned that “I adopt, repeat, reiterate and confirm what has been stated by me in the said application for condonation of delay and adopt the same herein if the same were repeated by me herein verbatim”. Though, on 25.04.2012, we had directed Advocate Mr.K.G. Nagawekar, for the Applicant/Appellant that he should produce some supporting documents but till today no documents have been produced and therefore, the fact that his son was hospitalized or that he was busy in his brother’s daughter’s marriage ceremony after he had received the copy of the impugned order cannot be believed. Hence, we are unable to allow the condonation of delay application since no sufficient cause has been given to condone the delay in view of Proviso Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(4) Counsel for the Respondent rightly relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission delivered in Revision Petition No.639/2012 decided on 3rd September, 2012, wherein Hon’ble National Commission also relied upon the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal V/s. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC) and in Ram Lal and Others V/s.Rewa Coalfields Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361.
(5) In the circumstances, relying on those two citations, we are not inclined to condone the delay, since sufficient cause is not at all established by any cogent evidence. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application No.407/2011 stands rejected. Consequently, Appeal No.666/2011 does not survive for consideration.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 20th September, 2012.
