The Ld. Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 is present and submits that he is not in a position to file the written objection against the condonation application, but he has got verbal objection against the condonation application.

None appears till 12.00 hours from the side of the appellant. It further appears that after the filing of this appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant only appeared for two times. As the condonation application has been filed supported by an affidavit, there arises no question of adducing oral evidence in support of this said application. It also transpires that this is the third day fixed for hearing the condonation application. We are not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the condonation application for any earthly reason and as such, the condonation application dated 19.05.2016 is taken up for its disposal on merit.

Perused the condonation application. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3.

It is averred in the condonation application that the judgment was passed by the Ld. District Forum in case no.CC-85/2014 dated 25.01.2016 and after passing of the said judgment by the Ld. Forum, the respondent Insurance Company submitted the cheque in the month of March, 2016 and the appellant-complainant received the said cheque on 07.05.2016 and deposited in his bank. It further appears that after receiving the awarded compensation, the appellant decided to prefer an appeal before this Commission as he was not satisfied with the said judgment and award, and thereafter, on 15.05.2016, he approached the Ld. Advocate to prefer an appeal and accordingly, the draft was prepared on 16.05.2016 and the memo of appeal was signed on 18.05.2016 and the memo of appeal has been filed along with condonaiton application on 19.05.2016. It is also averred that in that way, there occurs a delay of 84 days in preferring the appeal. It is further averred that if the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury.  

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 submits that judgment was passed on 25.01.2016 and the appellant-complainant decided to prefer an appeal after 10.05.2016 when he already received the awarded amount as per judgment. He also submits that the appellant has assigned no reason as to why he decided to prefer an appeal after three and half months from the date of judgment. He also submits that as the said delay has not been explained properly, the condonation application, being devoid of any cogent and sufficient explanation, should be rejected outright.

Going through the condoantion application, we find that the said application can be called actually a barren application. It contains no explanation on the basis of which such delay of 84 days is to be condoned. It further appears to us that the decision to prefer an appeal taken by the appellant-complainant is nothing, but a matter of afterthought, but that is also without any reason or explanation. That being the position, we find no ground to condone the delay of 84 days in preferring the appeal and as such, the application for condonation of delay of 84 days, being devoid of any merit, stands rejected. As the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal is not condoned, the memo of appeal filed by the appellant-complainant is found not legally maintainable and as such, the appeal is also dismissed.