Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

     This appeal has been filed by Maharashtra Employees Co-operative Credit Society, Satara against whom award has been passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara in Consumer Complaint No.115/2007.  By the said award, Forum below has directed Society officials, who were original opponent nos.1 to 3 to pay to the Complainant Smt.Shalan Dhondiram Bartakke, the amount of `40,000/-, amount of `35,000/- as per two deposit receipts and also pay `1,000/- for mental harassment and `1,000/- by way of costs.  As such, against judgement and award dated 05.09.2007 the original Opponents have filed this appeal. 

     In filing appeal there is delay of 177 days, hence, appellant has filed Misc.Application No.767/2008 to seek condonation of delay.  We are finding that 177 days delay is not at all explained by showing just and sufficient cause.  That apart what we are finding is that the matter is also going on before the Civil Court between Smt.Malti Sanjay Bartakke V/s.  Smt.Shalan Dhondiram Bartakke, in which Appellant is also co-defendant.  In that Civil Suit bearing No.320/2007 execution application was allowed.  The Civil Court has directed the present appellant herein not to give amount of `75,000/- to Defendant No.1, who is Complainant/Respondent in this appeal.  There is also another order passed by same Court in suit No.320/2007 dated 10.10.2007 wherein present Respondent has been injuncted from claiming amount of `75,000/- from the Appellant Society till suit is disposed of by the Civil Court.  Looking to these two orders it was the contention of the Appellant in the condonation of delay application that because there were orders passed by Civil Court passing injunction order against Shalan Dhondiram Bartakke, the Respondent as well as against Appellant Society, they had not filed appeal within limitation.  Now they should understand that right of appeal is available and it must be exercised with due diligence irrespective of the circumstances that may be obtainable to such party.  So, the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days irrespective of the fact that Civil Court has passed some orders in Civil Court No.320/2007.  We fail to understand why this appeal came to be filed when Civil Court has already granted injunction against Shalan Dhondiram Bartakke and against Appellant herein and there is nothing for the Appellant to file appeal in the circumstances obtainable, particularly when the Civil Court injuncted Shalan Dhondiram Bartakke and Appellant for claiming amount of `75,000/- in respect of which the Forum has passed the award.  That apart, when appeal is filed after the delay of 177 days and when we are finding that only ground mentioned is that they were under impression that Civil Court order was in force and nothing would happen in the District Forum and therefore, they did not file appeal in time.  This is the lame excuse put forth by the Appellant.  In fact Appellant wanted to challenge the order passed by the District Forum which should have been filed within limitation, but delay is monumental one.  There has been no just and sufficient ground to hold that the delay is satisfactorily explained and therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay and hence, pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Misc.Application No.767/2008 stands rejected.

   (ii)    Consequently, Appeal No.531/2008 does not survive for consideration.