1. Adv.Mr.S.P.Ashirgade is present for the appellant. Adv.Mr. Raulkar is present for the Resp. Adv.for appellant submitted that Resp.2 & 3 are formal parties and their names have been deleted by the appellant. We have heard Advocates of the appellant and Resp.1 on the application made for condonation of delay in which delay of 313 days in preferring the appeal is shown. The learned advocate of the appellant submits that the Consumer Forum, Yavatmal was vacant for some days and there was no presiding member. In the meantime, the Branch Officer of the appellant left the appellant company and that the office of the appellant was also shifted and hence the appellant had no knowledge about the disposal of the complaint. He further submitted that he learnt about the impugned order only when the attachment order was received by the appellant in the execution proceeding, and, therefore, the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained on 4/12/2013 and then the appeal came to be filed immediately. He, thus submitted that due to that reason, the delay of 313 days has been occurred and hence the same may be condoned.
2. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the Respondent No.1 strongly opposed the application and invited our attention to the coy of the Outward Register of the District Forum, Yavatmal and pointed out that the said Forum had sent the copy of the impugned order to the appellant on 9/1/2013. He further invited our attention to the report of “India Post” which shows that the said envelop containing the impugned order was delivered to the appellant on 14/1/2013 . He, thus, submitted that the appellant has suppressed this fact and falsely stated that the appellant learnt about passing of the impugned order when the attachment order was received in execution proceeding. He also submitted that the reason for condonation of delay are not satisfactory and sufficient to condone the delay.
3. After going through the documents filed on record, we find substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate of the respondent No.1. The aforesaid documents prove that the copy of the impugned order was sent to the appellant on 9/1/2013 and it was received by the appellant on 14/1/2013. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 14/2/2013, however, it was filed on 9/12/2013. Thus, we find that as the appellant has received the copy of impugned order long back, there was no reason for the delay of 313 days in preferring appeal. Moreover, the reason specified above given by the appellant for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient for condonation of such unreasonable delay of 313 days. There is no document showing that the appellant learnt about impugned order only when the attachment order was received in execution proceeding. Therefore, we hold that the application deserves to be rejected and accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
- The application is rejected.
- As the application is dismissed, the appeal is dismissed as time barred.
iii. No order as to costs.
