Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                Mr.D.M. Thakur, Advocate, proxy for M/s.Dave & Co., files authority letter and affidavit in reply opposing delay condonation application on behalf of the Non-applicants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2.  Taken on record.

(2)                Heard Advocate Mr.Nimish Desai, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant and Mr.D.M. Thakur, Advocate proxy for M/s.Dave & Co. for the Non-Applicants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3)                Against the dismissal of the complaint this appeal has been filed by the original Complainant and in filing this appeal there is delay of 165 days and for seeking condonation of delay Misc.Application No.5/2012 has been filed.  In Condonation of delay application it has been mentioned in paragraph 2 that complaint was dismissed on 22^nd June, 2011 and Complainant ought to have filed appeal within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of the impugned order.  But he mentions further that Hon’ble High Court has passed order in Criminal Writ Petition No.2471/2011 filed by him against the Respondents on 19^th September, 2011 and it took time and therefore there is delay in filing appeal.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that according to Appellant’s own pleading in condonation of delay application he was knowing that within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order he was required to file appeal in this Commission but he says that he filed Criminal Writ Petition for quashing the order of the Forum passed against him but that was altogether different proceeding.  It was criminal proceeding.  It has nothing to do with this proceeding.  Moreover, Hon’ble High Court had passed the order on 19^th September, 2011 and from that day the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days, but, he has filed this appeal as belatedly as on 05.01.2012  and other ground is taken by the Appellant that he is running maternity nursing home.   This cannot be a reasonable cause for condonation of delay under the Proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  So, on the  whole delay of 165 days is not at all explained by the Appellant by giving cogent and convincing evidence of just and sufficient cause.  Hence, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

(4)                It was tried to be argued that he was sitting in the Court hall right from 10.30 a.m. and this bench has disposed of 2/3 matters by allowing condonation of delay applications subject to costs.  However, in those proceedings the just and sufficient cause has been given by the Appellants to prompt us to condone the delay.  But, here only sweeping statement has been made by the Appellant that because he is running maternity and nursing home he could not file the appeal within stipulated time.  On the basis of this statement, we are afraid we cannot condone the delay by allowing condonation application.   Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

Misc.Application No.5/2011 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.

Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.

Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 9^th October, 2012.