Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member There is delay of 191 days in filing this appeal and therefore, Misc. Application No.137/2010 for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not at all explained in the application. The statement made though little bit lengthy, we would like to reproduce the same for clarity:- “6. The Applicants state that the Ld. District Consumer Forum vide its order dated 24/08/2009 issued notice in the said Execution Application filed by the Respondent No.1to4. The Applicants were shocked after received the notice u/s. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they were not concerned with the said matter as they were not the Director the Respondent No.5 society. The Applicants submit that one of the Applicants being Applicant No.2 demanded information from the District Dy. Registrar, Mumbai as the Respondent No.5 is having its registered office at Mumbai and branch at Sangli. The District Dy. Registrar vide its letter dated 11/02/2010 provided the list of Directors of the Respondent No.5 Society to the Applicants. The Applicants submit that the Applicants No.2,3and 4, therefore, attended the District Consumer Forum on the date of hearing of the execution proceedings in the month of January, 2010 and submitted their letter clarifying that the Applicants are not the Directors of the Respondent No.5 and they were only the Consultant members of the said society. 7. The Applicants submit that as the District Consumer Forum had already passed ex-parte order in the above proceedings on 03/07/2009 and as there is no provision provided in the Act for review of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum; the Applicants could not approach the District Consumer Forum with correct information. In view of the same, the only alternative remedy available to the Applicants is to file the present Appeal and bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Commission the true and correct facts that the Applicants are not the Directors of the Respondent No.5 Society and, therefore, they are not jointly and severally liable to repay the amount as directed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum in the impugned order. However, there is a delay in filing of the present Appeal. 8. The Applicants state that the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sangli vide its order dated 03/07/2009 allowed the above Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1. On 24/08/2009 the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sangli issued notice u/s 27 in Execution Application No.237/2009 for non-compliance of the order dated 03/07/2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1318/2008. The Applicants submit that as the Applicants were not Directors of the Respondent No.5 Society and in view of the legal advice sought by them, they did not appear in the said Complaint and/or filed their Written Reply. The Applicants submit that the Respondent No.5 Society with the malafide intention provided wrong information to the Depositors as well as the District Dy. Registrar, Sangli that the Applicants are Directors of the Respondent No.5. The Applicants continuously doing efforts for seeking correct information about the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.5 Society. On 11/2/2010 the Applicants sought information from the office of the District Dy. Registrar, Mumbai wherein the Hon’ble District Dy. Registrar furnished all the details of the Respondent No.5 society. In view of this, the present Applicants were continuously doing their efforts to bring the true and correct information before the Hon’ble Forum. In view of this if there is any delay in filing the present Appeal against the impugned order and/or notice, then the same be liable to condone in the interest of justice as the same is not intentional nor deliberate. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the delay, if any, be condoned in the interest of justice. 9. The Appellants state that the appellants are the only members of the Local Advisory Board of the Respondent No.5 society, having its branch office at Sangli. The appellants did not appear before the Hon’ble District Forum at Sangli in Consumer Complaint, as the appellant sought wrong advice from the Advocate in the Trial Court and therefore remained absent before Ld. District Consumer Forum at Sangli. The Ld. District Consumer Forum vide its Order proceeded the complaint ex-parte against the appellants. The Appellants in the month of March received the notice u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, realize the grievance of the notice and therefore immediately started to sort out the contents of the notice. The Appellants after obtaining 2nd opinion from another advocate immediately took appropriate steps and sought information from the District Deputy Registrar at Mumbai wherein it is made clear that the present appellants are not the directors of the Respondent No.5, society. The Appellants are working as members of the Local Advisory Board of the Respondent No.5, society and therefore not concerned with the day to day affairs of the society.” Erroneous belief of applicants/appellants that they are not Directors and therefore, there is no need to appear before the Forum below shows the deliberate act on the part of the applicants/appellants to remain absent and allow the proceeding to proceed ex-parte against them. They never bothered about result also. Only after the notice in execution is served upon them, they took steps to prefer this appeal. No details are furnished as to when copy of the order was served upon them by the Forum below and what they did thereafter till receipt of notice in execution. Thus, there is hardly any explanation coming from the applicants to explain the enormous delay. We find that the delay is not satisfactorily explained. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Misc. Appl. No.137/2010 for condonation of delay is rejected. 2. Appeal No.281/2010 is not entertained accordingly. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
