Per Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President: Notice on delay application was directed to be issued on 15/12/2009. Accordingly, notices were issued to the respondent on 08/04/2010. There was delay on part of the applicant/appellant to make compliance. Thereafter, application listed on board on 10/06/2010 and since the Commission was busy in old maters, it was adjourned to 05/08/2010. On the said date one Adv. Smt Priti More was present claiming herself proxy for Adv.Smt Shruti Gaikar. Today no one is present. Vakalatnama on record is of Adv.Smt Trupti Gaikar and V.T.Hundlani. Both the advocates are also absent. They are absent for the reasons best known to them. Under these circumstances, we have no option except to proceed in their absence. This appeal takes exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no. 293/2007 decided on 20/09/2008. Complaint was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from 07/07/2007. Appellant was further directed to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/-by way of mental agony and Rs.5,000/- by way of cost of litigation. These amounts were directed to be paid within period of 30 days and if not paid 3% interest will be chargeable. Admittedly, there is delay in preferring this appeal against this order and delay is of 35 days as stated in the application. For this delay condonation grounds stated are as follows: In para no.3 of the said application the applicant/appellant has stated that free copy of the order was received by them on 17/11/2008 and period to file the appeal expired on 15/12/2008. The appeal has been filed on 23/01/2009 and thus, there is delay of 35 days. In para 4 the applicant/appellant has stated that, “ the appellant is entitled to file the appeal and if at all the delay is not condoned the appellant will suffer irreparable hardship and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money”. In para 5 the applicant/appellant has stated that, “ the appellant is a Corporate Company which have huge business, all over the world and it takes time for the Officers of the Company to correspond to the Head Quarters and to have communication and take decision in respect of filing the Appeal and also after the decision have been taken, it takes time for taking legal advice from the Advocate and for giving instructions to file the appeal and therefore time is required for the same” and ultimately it is prayed that delay may be condoned. If we accept these grounds for condonation of delay in respect of this appeal, then in other matters also where appeal has been preferred, we have to accept the same because it is a huge business concern having business all over the world and time will be required to correspond between the officers. This concept is misconceived concept. When the judicial person is claming delay condonation on administrative grounds, it has to explain as to how the file moved in the office, which officers has taken how much time to take decision in the matter and in what manner the administrative decision process was followed. It is necessary to point out that even though there is delay, all the officers working with the corporate office diligently discharged their duties in the decision making process and further it shall show that in spite of deligence of officers in decision making process, delay is caused. Such particulars are not reflected in the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant/appellant. Apart from that how much time has been taken by the advocate to draft the appeal after instructions to file appeal was given to him is not explained. That is also not reflected in the application. Such types of applications drafted in such a negligent manner are absolutely misconceived applications. There is no law that simpicitor it is a corporate body, application for condonation of delay shall be allowed. We find no substance in the application for condonation of delay and we reject the same. Since, the application for condonation of delay is rejected, appeal also stands rejected. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. M.A.no.171/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently, appeal also stands rejected. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Dictated on dais. 5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
