19/12/14

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

            This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 251 days in filing this Appeal. 

            It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that after passing of the judgment by the Learned District Forum the Appellant entrusted its authorized representative Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy, an employee, to apply for the certified copy of the order, but he did not hand over the file to the Company.  The said person, subsequently, left the Company without any reason.  Attempt was made to search out the file, but it could not be traced out.  Subsequently, another employee was entrusted and after obtaining certified copy the Appeal has been filed with the delay of 251 days.

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there was no intentional delay in filing this Appeal and it should be condoned in the interest of justice. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing this Appeal and the day to day explanation has not been given in the petition for condonation of delay. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and carefully perused the papers on record.  It appears that the Learned District Forum delivered the judgment on 15/05/13 and on the same date the free copy was issued.  The certified copy was applied for on 11/02/14 and on the same date it was delivered.  There is no reasonable explanation as to the non-filing of the application for certified copy when the free copy was issued on the date of delivery of the judgment. 

            The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has been pleased to observe as follows:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”

            Having heard both sides and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 251 days in filing this Appeal has not been sufficiently explained. 

            The petition for condonation of delay is rejected.  Consequently, the Appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.