Date   : 25/02/2013.

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       Adv.Santosh B.Gastgar present for appellant. Adv.A.M.Gaikwad present for both the respondents.  We have heard both the advocates on delay condonation application. Delay is shown as 119 days. It is submitted by advocate of appellant that certified copy of impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2012 was received by appellant by post on 17.4.2012 and appellants were under bonafied impression that time provided for filing appeal is of 90 days and that appellant No.1 was busy in preparation of land for sowing seeds and after sufficient raining in Nilanga Taluka he concentrated towards the agriculture land. Further it is submitted that applicant No.1 cultivated and sown the land and he was in financial crisis and hence could not approach to his advocate at Aurangabad. He further submitted that after making arrangement about fund for filing appeal, appellant No.1 approached to the advocate at Aurangabad in second week of July 2012 and discussed the matter for filing appeal. He further submitted that at that time appellant learnt that period provided for filing appeal is of 30 days only.  Therefore appeal was filed after delay of 119 days and same may be condoned to meet the ends of justice and appellant is ready to pay cost of said delay and appeal may be heard and decided on merit.

2.       Adv.Shri.A.M.Gaikwad submitted that the ignorance of law is of no excuse for condonation of delay. He also submitted that delay is not properly explained and hence application may be rejected.

3.       It is well settled preposition of law that ignorance of law and poverty are no ground for condonation of delay. Delay shown is of 119 days in preferring appeal. As per provisions of Section 19 A of Consumer Protection Act appeal is to be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible within period of 90 days from it`s admission. Keeping in view said provision we find that there must be proper ground for condonation of delay. In the instant case, as noted above, the ignorance of law i.e. time provided for filing appeal cannot be said to be a good ground.  Moreover appellant also claimed that he had no fund for filing appeal. Appellant is not required to deposit any statutory amount in this Commission as complaint itself was dismissed. In our view the appellant cannot take benefit of his financial crisis for condonation of delay.  Moreover appellant has come with the case that he was busy in agriculture operation.  In our view delay which is of 119 days cannot be said to be occurred only because that appellant was busy in agriculture operation.  We find that appellant has not explained delay satisfactorily.  Hence we are not inclined to condone the delay. We thus pass the following order. 

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Misc.application No.224/2012 for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.

2.     Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.

3.     No order as to cost.

4.     Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

Pronounced and dictated

On dt.25.02.2013.

K.B.Gawali,                       Uma S.Bora,               B.A.Shaikh

  Member                            Member          Presiding Judicial Member

Mane