ORDER NO.10 DATED 25.04.2014
MR. JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
This is a case of belated appeal filed on 30.08.2013 against the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah dated 27.05.2013, wherein the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to remove the existing meter or to repair the same to avoid sporadic bill in future and not to disconnect the electric line of the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that there was another judgment and order in respect of the same complaint and the order was passed dismissing the complaint in CC Case No. 124/2012. The second order dated 27.05.2013 also relates to the same CC Case No. 124/2012.
Referring to their prayer for condonation of delay in respect of filing of the appeal, it was submitted that application for obtaining the certified copy of the order was filed on 21.06.2013, and thereafter the Local Office forwarded the copy of the order to the Divisional Office on 15.07.2013. The said Divisional Office after perusing the papers forwarded the same to the Corporate Legal Cell of the Appellant for preferring the appeal on 02.08.2013. After having clearance from the Corporate Legal Ceil, the appeal was filed on 30.08.2013. It was stated that there was no negligence on the part of the Appellant and in filing the appeal, particularly, in view of the peculiarity of the matter that when the original complaint was dismissed by an order of the Ld. Forum below dated 13.03.2013, how the same order could be revised and allowed by the same Ld. Forum, was beyond the appreciation of the Appellant. The delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and may be condoned.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent submitted that the reasons for delay in filing the application for certified copy of the order dated 27.05.2013 remained completely unexplained and delay occurred also in taking decision about filing of appeal during the period from 22nd June, 2013 to 15th July, 2013. This was not all convincing because it was just natural on the part of the office of the Local Supply office to convey the judgment/order to their higher office immediately after receipt of copies of the judgment. Copies of judgment/orders of (i) IV 2012 (CPJ) 684 (NC), (ii) IV 2012 722 (NC), (iii) I CPJ 4 and order No. FA/1209/2013 of this Commission being cited it was argued that that administrative or procedural delay in processing the case cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Upon hearing of Ld. Advocates appearing for both the Appellant and the Respondent and from perusal of material on record, I am of the view that the delay in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily. The Appellants should have been more diligent if they were really confident that the reasons for filing the appeal were quite justified. This does not appear to have happened in the present case. It is not at all convincing that the Appellant was careful or sincere about filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal being time barred, is dismissed.