No. 7/25.02.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellants through Mr. Suman Basu, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Raj Kumar Maji, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1.  Heard the Ld. Advocate in support of the application for condonation and the Ld. Advocate opposing the same.  It appears that there is a long delay in preferring the appeal.  The impugned order was passed on 09.02.2009.  The Petitioners have stated that they have the knowledge about the said impugned order indicates that the matter was decided after contested hearing.  The order also records that the notice was duly served on the O.Ps and the O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 submitted Written Version and O.P. Nos. 4 & 5 though took notice but did not appear.  Therefore, after notice when the Appellants preferred not to take steps in the matter, their ignorance about the final judgement has no relevance so far as the delay condonation application is concerned.  The Appellants have also filed an application on 04.02.2010 stating in further details the explanation for the delay.  It appears that after the order was passed on 09.02.2009 the Appellants received copy of the order on 22.02.2009 when the same was sent by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Complainant.  Pleading knowledge of the order on 22.02.2009 it has been stated that the appeal was drafted by the Counsel at Delhi and forwarded the same to the Appellants and the draft was revised by the Counsel at Delhi and again sent to the Appellants on 12.03.2009.  The Appellants have stated further that they have engaged a local Counsel for filing the Vokalatnama who received the papers but in spite of requests and reminders the said local Counsel did not respond and the Appellants followed up the matter with email.  On 25.06.2009 the local Counsel of the Appellants requested for another signed set of the appeal which was again forwarded and the Demand Draft was also prepared and sent.  On 06.07.2009 the Counsel of the Appellant at Delhi again requested the local Counsel at Calcutta to provide an update/order from the State Commission.  Even after the reminder the same was not available.  Making an allegation that the Counsel at Calcutta was not taking steps diligently the present Ld. Advocate Mr. Suman Basu was entrusted with the matter and from the application the present Ld. Advocate proceeded with the matter diligently and preferred the appeal.

From the aforesaid facts we find that under the cover of high sounding explanations including preparation of appeal by Counsel at Delhi and sending the matter by using modern gadgets the Appellants have tried to conceal the actual fact that they were utterly negligent.  We find in this matter on 04.02.2010 opportunity was granted to the Appellants to settle the matter offering some concession but the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants communicates the Bench in spite of his intimation of the aforesaid fact no decision as regards the said proposal was communicated in writing and, therefore, the Ld. Advocate is unable to produce any such instruction in writing before the Bench.  We do not find also that the allegation against the Ld. Advocate made in the application is substantiated by some diligent steps taken by the Appellants against the said Ld. Advocate against whom allegation of delay has been made.  In the circumstances as the application is absolutely found not reliable and it appears that the large period has been left without any explanation, there is no reason to condone such long delay.  It appears that order dated 09.02.2009 was challenged in the appeal filed on 15.09.2009.  The consumer being the Complainant has suffered seriously by such infructuous proceedings by mighty O.Ps – Appellants.  It appears that the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 – Complainant has stated that after the order was passed by the Forum, expressing concern for compliance the present Appellants have taken back the camera and letter dated 03.03.2009 was issued indicating their intention to comply but compliance has still not been made.  The application is dismissed.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation.