(Passed on 06.08.2013)

Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      Adv. Mr A V Mude is present for the appellant.  He filed his power.  Respondent No.1 Mr Sudhir Nayak appeared in person.  None is present for respondent No.2. 

2.      We have heard Advocate of the appellant and respondent No.1 in person on delay condonation application in which, the delay shows of 94 days in preferring the appeal.  Advocate of the appellant explained the said delay as stated in the application to the effect that the copy of the impugned order dtd.09.12.2011 was received by the appellant on 24.01.2012.  On receiving that copy, the appellant contacted 2 to 3 counsels who kept case papers with them for long time for filing the appeal and then returned the same to the applicant.  The applicant then referred that copy of the impugned order for obtaining the legal opinion and it is received on 16.03.2012.  The approval was required to be obtained from the Head Office and therefore, the applicant sent the copy of impugned order alongwith case papers to its Head Office. The same was received back with approval of Head Office, on 22.03.2012.  Thereafter, the applicant handed over the case papers to its counsel on 27.03.2012.  After going through the papers, the counsel asked for details of transactions and the report of ATM machine, that operation of the machine and C.C. TV footage and the report.  The applicant asked the concerned agency to handover the report for doing needful and the same was received by the applicant on 30.03.2012.  Thereafter, the officer, who was appointed for dealing the case, was not feeling well and he was on leave.  Then the officer was busy in March ending financial work till 20.04.2012 and in that process the delay of 94 days was occurred and he thus submitted that as the delay is properly explained, it may be condoned.

3.      The respondent No.1 submitted that the delay of 94 days is too much and no proper explanation is given for the same and hence, the application may be rejected.  He further submitted that there was sufficient time for the appellant to take C.C. TV footage and report during the pendency of the case and hence, the delay condonation application may be rejected.

4.      We have, thus, perused the papers placed before us.  We find that as the appellant already contested the original complaint, during the pendency of the complaint itself, the details could have been obtained about the work of ATM Machine, its C.C.TV footage and report during pendency of that complaint itself.  He further submitted that in fact, no such time can be consumed for doing the said exercise.  We also find that the appellant did not take prompt steps for filing the appeal during the month of March and its officer also did not take care to file the appeal in time.  Moreover, no documents are produced, showing that mother of the appellant’s Advocate was hospitalized and hence he was busy in looking after her.  Thus, we find that as there is inordinate delay of 94 days and as it is not properly explained, it cannot be condoned.

Hence, the following order:

ORDER

i.                    Application for condonation of delay bearing No. MA/12/57 is rejected.

ii.                  Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/12/306 stands dismissed.

iii.                No order as to cost.

iv.               Copy of this order be furnished to the parties.