Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

      This appeal has been filed by the original Opponent against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.737/2002 decided on 23.06.2006.  By allowing the complaint partly the District Forum directed Opponent to refund amount of `11,000/- with interest @9% per annum from 24.12.2002.  The District Forum also directed to pay costs of `2,000/- to the Complainant.  Being aggrieved by this order the original Opponent has filed this appeal. 

     Appellant had sent the appeal by post and admittedly this Commission has received this appeal on 30.08.2006.  Office noted by way of objection that it has been mentioned that the vakalatnama/authority letter has been enclosed, but it was found that the vakalatnama/authority letter has not been enclosed.  We, therefore, perused the appeal memo and other accompaniments.  We are finding that complaint was decided on 23.06.2006.  Copy was received by the Appellant on 24.06.2006. The appeal was sent by post to this Commission on 30.08.2006.  Even Opponent accepted that he received certified copy of the impugned order sent by the District Forum on 24.07.2006.  Thus, within one month i.e. on or before 23.08.2006 he should have filed the appeal.  He sent appeal by post which received by this Commission on 30.08.206. So, there is delay of 6/7 days in filing this appeal and there is no condonation of delay application filed along with the appeal compilation.  Since, there is no condonation of delay application filed by the Appellant, we hold that this appeal is liable to be rejected only on the ground that appeal is barred by limitation as it is not filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Appeal stands rejected as not filed within limitation.

       (ii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 12^th October, 2011.