Order No. 5 Date: 14-07-2017
Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellant.
By such petition, it is stated by the Appellant that on or about 10-11-2016, after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order, its Regional Office sent the same to its Pune H.O. After getting information on 28-11-2016, the same was sent to the Ld. Advocate for his opinion, who provided the draft on 10-11-2016. Thereafter, the said draft was sent to the Pune H.O. for final approval and after obtaining due approval of the H.O. on 15-11-2016, the Appeal was filed before this Commission.
Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and perused the material on record, including the citation referred to by the Appellant.
It transpires from the impugned order that the complaint case was duly contested by the Appellant and after hearing both sides, the Ld. District Forum delivered its final order on 25-10-2016. In view of this, there can be no quarrel as to the fact that the Appellant was very much aware of the date of pronouncement of the final order.
Most intrigue is the fact is that, despite having full knowledge of the date of passing of the final order, the Appellant obtained certified copy of the impugned order on 10-11-2016, i.e., after a fortnight. There is no explanation anywhere in the delay condonation petition as to why the certified copy was not obtained from the Ld. District Forum forthwith. Nowadays orders of Consumer Fora being uploaded on a daily basis, if the Appellant indeed had any wherewithal to know the fate of the complaint case, it could easily download a copy of the final order on the very day of its passing and thereafter, obtaining certified copy of the same within a day or two.
Furthermore, it is stated by the Appellant that its H.O. approved the draft Memo of Appeal being prepared by the concerned Ld. Advocate on 15-11-2016. However, it is quite baffling that the approved Memo of Appeal was filed before this Commission on 09-02-2017, i.e., after 86 days. No explanation is, however, given by the Appellant in respect of these 86 days delay.
On an overall scrutiny of the petition for condonation of delay, it is quite visible that the Appellant has miserably failed to justify such huge delay in filing the Appeal.
We would like to sign off quoting the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 which is very much pertinent here. By such authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever”.
The petition for condonation of delay is found to be sans of any merit. As such, the same cannot be allowed. In effect, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
