There are three Counsels on record, namely, one Mr. Adv. On last occasion when this appeal along with the delay 29/09/2010, notice on delay It appears that accordingly office has prepared the notice and given it to the appellant Counsel.However, it is not known whether said notice is served or not.Therefore, no one appears for the respondent i.e. equally lapse on the part of the applicant/appellant.

When we issued notice on 29/09/2010, we were doubtful about the ground taken in delay It is equally submitted that certified copy was received on 18/11/2009 and thereafter, appeal has been preferred.In respect of making such statement in We asked Ld. Counsel at that time that this is certified copy which you have obtained on payment, however, why he has not produced the free copy received by him.He tried to submit before us that free copy was not given and therefore, he had to file a fresh application and obtained the copy and thereafter, filed appeal.In order to verify the correctness of statement of Ld. Counsel, we issued a notice to Registrar, District Consumer Disputes Now it is disclosed after going through the register that after the decision on 04/09/2009, the free copy was prepared by the office of District Consumer Disputes Copy was taken by the complainant/respondent on 23/09/2009. Therefore, what we find that parties themselves approached to District Consumer Disputes The only lacuna which requires to be recorded is that the Counsel for the appellant/Let it be as it is.The fact remains that free copy was not given by the District Consumer Disputes Having accepted the free copy and having found that there is delay in the matter to cover up the same part of delay, appellant made a fresh application on 31/10/2009 and thereafter, have filed this appeal.This shows dishonesty on the part of appellant even though it is Corporate body. In fact, it was obligatory for them after accepting free copy from the District Consumer Disputes Therefore, what we find that in the present matter that delay has not been explained from the acceptance of the copy till 30/10/2009.Further the delay which is tried to be explained on administrative ground is also not properly explained and files were not produced before us to show movement of the file so as to ascertain time consumed by each of the officer in taking decision.Probably, having realized that District Consumer Disputes After going through all the records and proceedings produced on record and analyzing the situation before us we decided to go with the matter in the absence of advocates.We do not find any substance in the delay application.As such, Misc. Application No. 399/2010 stands rejected.

We find that on 29/09/2010 since the statement was made by Ld. Counsel that he is ready and willing to deposit the total amount as directed by the District Consumer Disputes However, now it is reported that as per this order the amount has not been deposited except the amount which was deposited in view of the proviso of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Therefore, the say in the matter was not operative and we clarify in view of the rejection of the appeal on above ground that stay which was granted on 29/09/2010 is hereby vacated and District Consumer Disputes

It is to be noted that this appeal was filed on 22/01/2010. Along with the appeal, in view of Proviso Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was obligatory for the appellant to deposit 50% amount or`25,000/-whichever is less.This is the amount which is required to be paid along with appeal.We find that in the present matter this amount was not paid by the appellant. Even though the appeal was filed on 22/01/2010, the Demand Draft has been tendered to the office on 22/06/2010 i.e. after period of six months.In fact, office should not have not registered the appeal till the amount is paid and office should have kept the appeal under objection.

We find that however the office has registered the appeal.Filing clerk Mr. He states that this was pointed out, however, advocate for the appellant contended that it is not necessary to deposit the amount as per Proviso of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the contrary, he stated that when he will press for the stay, he will file a D.DWe need not to go into the same but the fact remains that whatsoever reasons none of the advocates deposited the amount.In fact, after discussing with the advocate, the office should have drawn objection as provided in Regulation 9 and should have asked him to remove the same within period of 15 days.Further if the advocate or appellant is disputing the correctness of the defects pointed out by office, then in , office should have placed the matter before State Commission for appropriate order.However, the office has failed to place the matter before State Commission as per Regulation 9(3) because it is important to note that when the objections are raised at the time of filing, the State Commission or District Consumer Disputes Therefore, following all the objections by the office is mandatory.We have noticed in several cases, the office though orally intimates to the advocates, they do not make note of it and accepts acknowledgment from the party.Benefit is ultimately taken by the party.Therefore, office of the State Commission and especially the persons who are dealing with the filing of appeal and registration are hereby directed to look into the Regulation no. 9 whenever office objections are raised and to see that Regulation no. 9 is followed in its full spirit and letter.Similar directions are also issued to the Registry and to the Filing Clerk working in District Consumer What we find is that, that why in spite of filing of appeal on 22/01/2010, the appellant could not file a Demand Draft as required under the Proviso is nowhere explained by him and therefore, , on this count we find that he is not entitled for any benefits of delay.All sorts of dilatory practices are Hence, we pass the following order:-

-: -

1. M.A. no. 399/2010 for

2. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.

3. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

4. Dictated on dais.

5. Copy of the order be sent to all District Forum and be brought to the notice of Registry and Filing Clerk working in District Consumer

6. Copies of the order herein