Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

     Heard both sides. 

     This application is vehemently opposed by the Respondent who filed sister appeal earlier to this appeal bearing No.1421/2009.  Objection is taken on various grounds, particularly, stating that the duration of delay is not at all stated and therefore, question of explaining the same does not arise.  Secondly, it is submitted that that Standard Chartered bank also sent copy of order passed by Forum below  and accordingly brought it to the notice of Applicant/Appellant in this matter.  Therefore, the submission of applicant/appellant that he was away from Mumbai and was at Pune and hence was not aware of the order passed till had a notice of the appeal filed by Standard Chartered Bank.  After collecting the copy of the impugned order, he tried to file cross objection in the appeal filed by the Bank, but the same being not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was not entertained and then filed this appeal with the application for condonation of delay. 

     Considering the totality of the circumstances, we do find that it is not an application drafted by a layman but it is drafted by a legal expert and as such above referred omissions cannot be ignored.   Further, since Applicant/Appellant was aware of the impugned order passed not only through a copy sent by Forum below at his given address, but, also by e-mail sent to him by the Standard Chartered Bank. We find that he did not act diligently and there is no satisfactorily explanation coming from his end to explain the delay.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed and accordingly, Appeal No.1092/2010 is not entertained.