Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This is an application filed by applicants/appellants for condonation of delay.  Applicant/appellant wants to prefer appeal against the order passed in consumer complaint No.103/2010 dated 19/07/2011.  However, there is delay of 370 days to prefer the appeal.  Hence, applicants/appellants asked for condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed was not within knowledge of partners-applicants/appellants.  According to them the complaint was heard and kept for order which was passed later on.  On that date, neither appellant nor his Advocate was present.  The order was received by the applicants/appellants by post.  Said order was received by minor son of one of the partners of the applicants/appellants, but same was not shown to the applicants/appellants and on this ground, there was delay to prefer the appeal.  Delay was not intentional and hence, it may be condoned.

2.       Application is opposed by the non-applicant/respondent.

3.       We have heard Mr.Digambar Thakare, Advocate for the applicants/appellants and Mr.Nagesh Shinde, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent at length.

4.       In the application for delay condonation, it is mentioned that the Advocate for the applicants/appellants was not present still his presence was shown in the order.  Learned District Forum has no reason to mark presence of Advocate of present applicants/appellants in his absence.  Objection was never raised by concerned Advocate or the applicants/appellants although presence of Advocate of the applicants/appellants was marked in the order.  It is not made clear minor son of which partner has received the order.  Reasons of the delay as claimed by the applicants/appellants are not properly explained.  Reasons are not well founded.  There is no sufficient reason made out by the applicant/appellant to condone the delay.  Hence, we pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.                 Misc. Application No.296/2012 for condonation of delay stands rejected.  In the result, appeal No.854/2012 does not survive for consideration.

2.                 No order as to costs.

3.                 Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 14^th August 2013.