Per Justice Mr.S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President Heard Mr.V. Mannadiar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Notice was issued to the other side and it was served. In spite of service, other side is absent. 2. This is a delay condonation application filed by the applicant/appellant. Consumer complaint No.373/2009 was filed by non-applicant/respondent before the District Forum, Pune. Said complaint was decided by order dated 17/02/2012 and the complaint was partly allowed. The applicant/appellant was directed to allow the complainant to operate both the Credit Cards. It is further directed that name of the complainant be informed to the SEBIL Centre and it should be withdrawn and late charges of `25,000/- be paid as compensation and `1,000/- be paid towards cost of litigation. It is further directed that within six weeks said amount be paid. This order was passed on 17/02/2012 and the free copy of said order was dispatched to the applicant/appellant on 27/02/2012 and it has been received by them. According to the applicant/appellant, appeal has been filed on 23/05/2012 and thus, there is delay of 53 days in filing appeal. 3. The ground made out is that initially Branch Office has received free certified copy of the impugned order and thereafter, they have decided not to file appeal. However, at the later stage, papers were submitted to the Head Office and Head Office directed those papers to be scrutinized by their Legal Cell and then they realised that there was absurd judgement and they decided to file appeal and since the order is not sustainable in law, delay may be condoned. 4. Proviso of Section 15 states that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. Therefore, delay can be condoned if there is sufficient cause. Sufficient cause is that cause which incapacitated the applicant/appellant to file appeal in time. In the case of Corporate Sector, sometimes administrative procedure is required to be followed before filing of the appeal. However, that is not the case in the present matter. Initially, the Branch Office had acquiesced with the order and it is the Head Office who subsequently thought it fit to file appeal and that too on legal advice. Therefore, this cannot be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. If we start to accept such type of ground to condone the delay then every litigants shall come with the case stating that initially they had decided not to prefer the appeal but subsequently thought it fit to file an appeal. Such is not the interpretation of ‘sufficient cause’ appearing in Section 15 proviso stated above and therefore, application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Hence, the order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Misc. Application No.213/2012 for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, appeal No.679/2012 does not survive for consideration. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 21st November 2012. | 
