Below Misc. Application No. MA/12/28 for Delay Condonation Application Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 192 days, which was caused in preferring the appeal against the judgment & order dated 22/09/2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. CC/11/285. 2. We heard Mr. S.R. Gajbhiye, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/applicant, perused the application under order and the copy of impugned judgment & order. However, as the respondent/non-applicant- Mr. Prakash is already proceeded exparte, we have had no opportunity to hear him. 3. It is submitted by Mr. S.R. Gajbhiye, Ld. Counsel for the applicant / appellant that the applicant/appellant never received the complaint notice but it is wrongly proceeded exparte and exparte judgment came to be passed against the appellant/applicant. It is submitted that the appellant/applicant came to know about the exparte judgment when it received the notice of execution proceeding on 28/03/2012 through its Head Office. It is further submitted that the complaint notice was also received at the same time through Head Office and on perusal of complaint notice it is transpired that the same was addressed to its recovery branch which is situated at 3rd Floor, Usha Complex, Opp. Kasturchand Park, Near LIC Office, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel Marg, Nagpur. In fact, the complaint notice should have been sent to the appellant on its address at Bhagyashri Compound, Cement Road, Dharampeth Extension, Shankar Nagar Square, Nagpur as shown in the Deed of Agreement, etc. But the District Consumer Forum without verifying the correct communication address of the appellant, wrongly proceeded exparte and passed the exparte impugned judgment. 4. It is further submitted that after receipt of the notice of execution proceeding on 28/03/2012 the appellant applied for certified copy of impugned judgment and order and after receiving the certified copy of impugned order filed the appeal in time. By way of abundant precaution the appellant has filed this application for condonation of delay. It is submitted to condone the delay. 5. On perusal of copy of impugned judgment and order it reflects that the appellant/original opponent was duly served with notice of complaint but the appellant/opponent failed to appear and resisted the complaint. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum was constrained to proceed the matter is exparte. When the execution proceeding notice was received by the appellant within reasonable period through its Head Office, it can not be accepted that the appellant had not received the complaint notice. According to Mr. S.R. Gajbhiye, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/applicant that the complaint notice was issued to the appellant alongwith the notice of execution proceeding on 28/03/2012 only. But he could not explain as to why the Head Office of the appellant did not send the complaint notice to the appellant immediately. Even if it is presumed that the complaint notice was sent on the address of the recovery branch of the appellant, the recovery branch should have handed over the same notice to the appellant branch. When the appellant branch as well as its recovery branch is concerned with each other, it can not be accepted that the appellant branch has not received the complaint notice. 6. Considering all these facts, it can be safely inferred that the official of the appellant are negligent and they did not bother to contest the complaint. Therefore, on any count, we find no just and reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay of 192 days. In our view, if such inordinate delay is condoned the very object of the legislature would be defeated. Therefore, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order. ORDER i. Misc. Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. ii. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/12/211 is rejected. iii. No order as to cost. Dated:- 15/03/2013. | 
