Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal has been filed by the original Opponent against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.424/1998 on 25.02.2000.  By allowing the complaint partly the District Forum directed that the Opponent to deposit the amounts collected towards loan repayment installments along with the interest with the Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation as early as possible and within three months and also directed to pay `2,500/- to each Complainant for mental harassment.  As such original Opponent has filed this appeal.

(2)                This appeal was lying unattended since 2003.  O­n 5^th July, 2011 this appeal was placed before us for disposal.  On finding that both the parties were absent, we had directed office to issue notice to both the parties and it was made returnable on 11.08.2011.  Accordingly office had issued notice to both the parties by R.P.A.D. but acknowledgement was not received on 11.08.2011 and therefore, this matter was adjourned to today.  Today also both the parties are absent.  We presume that both the parties must have received the notice and hence, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merit. 

(3)                The judgement was delivered by the District Forum on 25.02.2000.  This Appeal came to be filed on 21.02.2003.  Obviously there is delay of more than 2½ year.  In fact 3-4 days lesser to three years.  This delay is not properly explained by the Appellant in the condonation of delay and application filed at page Nos.101 to 109.  In the condonation of delay application filed at paragraph no.9 he pleaded that after receipt of the order passed by the District Forum, Nashik, an application was moved by the Appellant to review of the order.  But District Forum vide its order directed Appellant to prefer appeal because District Forum had no power to review its own order and therefore, delay had been caused.   However, when there was no power of review or revision vested in the District Forum, there is no question of spending lot of time in prosecuting the proceeding which is not tenable in law before the District Forum.  In any case the delay of three year (less than 3-4 days) is not properly explained and he rushed to file appeal only when he received notice from the District Forum in executing proceeding.  He received notice on 29.10.2002 because on that day he appeared in execution proceeding.  From that day till the date of filing of the appeal no explanation is furnished by the Appellant and therefore, delay appears to be very inordinate and not properly explained by giving just and sufficient cause and on this count alone the condonation of delay application is liable to be rejected.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Misc.Application No.341/2003 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.

       (ii)              Consequently, Appeal No.254/2003 does not survive for consideration.

     (iii)              No order as to costs.

     (iv)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 12^th October, 2011.