Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Memmber:
Mr.Gai, A/R files special authority on behalf of the Non-applicant/Respondent. It is taken on record.
(1) Heard Advocate Ms.Nandini Jadhav for the Applicant/Appellant and Mr.Jehangir Gai, A/R for the Non-Applicant/Respondent on delay condonation application.
(2) Appeal has been filed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., challenging the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.221/2009 decided on 15/09/2011. In filing appeal there is delay of 126 days and therefore, Misc.Application No.138/2012 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Grounds mentioned in the condonation of delay application inter alia mentions that the Applicant’s/Appellant’s office was shifted from Goregaon to Borivali. However, Mr.Jehangir Gai, A/R for the Non-Applicant/Respondent pointed out from the appeal memo itself that the office of ‘Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.’ is still working at Goregaon. So, false plea has been taken by the Applicant/Appellant that their office has been shifted from Goregaon to Borivali and on that count the delay is sought to be condoned.
(3) Secondly, we are finding that Misc.Application filed for condonation of delay is not supported by affidavit. One affidavit has been filed mentioning that “affidavit in support of the interim application”, but nowhere it has been mentioned in the affidavit that delay of 126 days should be condoned by allowing condonation of delay application. There is no just and sufficient cause mentioned initially in the affidavit filed in support of condonation fo delay application. In fact, Ld.Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant fairly conceded that there is no affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application. Further, it is not for the office of this Commission to inform Advocate to file affidavit in support of delay condonation of application. The office of our Commission is being manned by persons who are at the most graduates. They are not well versed in law but the Advocate who is filing the appeal must know that he/she should file affidavit in support of condonation of delay. What is pertinent to note is the fact that, appeal filed by M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., is signed by Mr.Santosh Prakash Jawle – Area Legal Manager. He should know what should be accompanied with the delay condonation application.
(4) It is also pertinent to note that in the District Forum Appellant Company remained absent and the complaint was allowed to proceed ex-parte against it and when Respondent filed execution application then the Company decided to approach this Commission by filing this appeal. In the circumstances, we are not at all convinced that there is just and sufficient cause for filing this appeal so belatedly and therefore, we are not inclined to allow this condonation of delay application in the absence of affidavit filed in support thereof. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application No.138/2012 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
(ii) Consequently, Appeal No.284/2012 does not survive for consideration.
(iii) The amount deposited by the Applicant/Appellant at the time of obtaining stay be paid to the Non-Applicant/Respondent after the period of revision is over, towards part satisfaction of the award.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 22nd August, 2012.
