Adv. Mr. Jaiswal is present for the appellant and Adv. Mr. Marathe is present for respondent. The appeal was heard on 21/3/13, on the issue of application for condonation of delay. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant received the copy of impugned order on 2/8/13 after which it was sent to the corporate office of the appellant on 9/8/13 for appropriate action. However the copy of the order got lost in the transit. After few days, it came to be notice of the appellant who could recover the copy from the courier, on 13/9/13 only. Thereafter it was sent to the Legal department and after taking appropriate decision, and after preparing proper draft of appeal, It was sent to the advocate of the appellant at Nagpur for filing an appeal. Thus the appeal was filed on 28/10/13 with a delay of 47 days. Advocate for the appellant submitted further that the appellant has a fair chance for success and has a good case on merit. Hence, requested in the interest of the justice to condone the delay of 47 days. The advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the application for condition of delay calling it to be inordinate delay and a response to the execution application and proceedings filed by the respondent before the Forum below to get the order executed. The advocate for the respondent relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Count in the case of Anshul Agrawal Vs. New Okhala Industrial development authority reported in IIII (2011) CPJ 63 in {SC} in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the object of expeditious adjudication of Consumer Dispute would get defeated if the court entertains highly belated petitions filed against the order of the Consumer Forum. The advocate for the respondent further relied on the following judgment as listed below. b) I (2013)CPJ (NC)(CN) Nandini Bhajipala Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. C) Revision Petition No. 1616 of 2011, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. Rangaswamy & Other, decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Dt. 11/11/2013 d) Revision Petition No. 1836 of 2013, Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs. Harpreet Kaur decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Dt. 09/12/2013 e) Appeal No. A/09/19, Divisional Manager, Iffco- Tokio Vs. Vinay Sahebrao Aade & others decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench, Nagpur Dt. 04/07/2013 Advocate for the respondent further vehemently submitted that in all the above relied cases the Hon’ble Courts have opined against condonation of inordinate delay and held that the object of expeditious adjudication of Consumer Dispute would get defeated if such delays are condoned. The advocate for the respondent further submitted that even looking into the facts, the appellant does not appear to be sincere and serious in filing the appeal, stating further that the appellant has not given a sufficient and proper explanation for the delay. Therefore the appellant by filing the condonation of delay application is wasting the valuable time of the Commission and intends to harass the respondent who is a widow of the deceased policy holder with one female child dependent upon her. He therefore earnestly requested for the dismissal of the application. The advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a Corporate Organization, where in appropriate administrative steps are required to be taken to acquire proper permission and evaluation to take the definite steps. In the present case the order was unfortunately got lost in the transit. Hence the appeal got delayed in spite of earnest, serious and speedy steps taken by the appellant to file the appeal in the minimum possible time. However with all the sincerity and the alacrity, the appeal was finally filed on28/10/13. Therefore the advocate for the appellant requested that in the interest of justice, merits and the right of the appellant in hearing, the delay of 47 days be condoned. I heard both the advocates on 21/3/14 and weighed the contention against each other. I find prima facie the order by the Forum below is passed in favour of an individual respondent, compensating her with the insurance of her deceased husband. Though, the appellant has deposited the entire decreetal amount, still then, It comes to the notice that the appellant was not appropriately serious about filing the appeal. The delay as per the contention of the appellant is 47 days. The appellant received the copy of the order on 2/8/13 and filed his appeal 28/10/13 which clearly shows that the delay is of 56 days and even after that the appellant took 14 days more to remove the office objection. Hence finally the appeal came to be registered on 11/11/2013 with a delay of 56 days. I consider that the delay of 56 days added with the period of limitation of 30 days becomes the time frame of 86 days. The appellant is a corporate institution with all the technological instruments and implements of fast communication under its command. Therefore it is no wrong to expect such an organization to act in a swift and speedy manner with earnest alacrity in all its decisions and acts. Keeping this in mind and the superficial reasons cited by the appellant without appropriate evidence. I see no reasonable ground to accept the delay application. The explanation thus given by appellant is neither satisfactory nor convincing. It’s a battle between a fricle individual and powerful institution where in the condonation of such delay and laxity would render, the object of the act fully negated. Hence in the light of the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the ratio emanating from the judgments referred supra, and on the basis of the reasons developed in my mind, I decide not to condone the delay. Therefore I pass the following order. ORDER I. The application for condonation of delay stands rejected. II. Parties to bear their own cost. III. Free copies of order be given to the parties. | 
