Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt.Pallavi Ashar-Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate for the respondent, are present.
There is alleged delay, which is termed as virtual delay of 155 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, this misc.application for condonation of delay is filed. It is alleged that applicant/appellant was ignorant about the proceedings before the Consumer Forum and only after the order was passed, they became aware of the proceedings and of the order passed after non applicant/respondent’s lawyer sent an intimation of order to them and, thereafter, the time was taken by the advocate to prepare and file the appeal. It is claimed that virtual delay is of 115 days and it is sought to be condoned on the above referred grounds.
This application is vehemently opposed by the non applicant/respondent stating that the delay is much more than what is stated and is not calculated properly, which ought to have been calculated from the date of receipt of the order sent by the forum free of costs as per the procedure and practice. Grounds mentioned are also not sufficient to condone the delay. Considering the reasons mentioned as stated above about the latches on the part of the lawyer, there is no mention of the name of lawyer to whom the work was entrusted. Thereafter, once the copy of the order was available on 02/04/2010 to prepare the appeal memo, appellant should not have taken this much long period even from the alleged date of knowledge i.e.02/04/2010.
From the certified copy of the order produced i.e. main file (Set I), it could be seen that impugned order is dated 31/12/2007. Copy thereof was sent by the forum to the parties under certificate of posting on 04/01/2008. It is a certified copy obtained afterwards on 21/09/2010. Copy of original certified copy received bears date of issue on 04/01/2008 and it is filed in second set for a member. It also bears date of dispatch of the said copy (free copy) as 04/01/2008. Therefore, this particular information is, prima facie, concealed by the applicant/appellant while presenting the application for condonation of delay. Under the circumstances, we find that delay in filing the appeal is not appropriately calculated. It is more than 1000 days and the same is apparently not properly explained, much less satisfactorily explained. Holding accordingly, we pass following order:-
ORDER
Misc.application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Consequently, appeal is not entertained.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 29th June, 2011.
