Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
We heard Mr.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Ms.Prachi Kadam, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent on delay condonation application.
2. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 21/08/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.477/2008 (The Konkan Co-op. Cashew Marketing & Processing Society Ltd. V/s. P.K. Kundu) by District Forum, Kolhapur. There is alleged delay of 366 days in filing this appeal and hence, this application for condonation of delay is filed.
3. According to the applicant/appellant he has not received copy of the impugned order dated 21/08/2010. He came to know only after intimation thereof was received through non-applicant/respondent when their lawyer sent him copy on 15/07/2011 and thereafter, he had took consequential steps for obtaining certified copy, contacted his lawyer at Kolhapur and filed this appeal. It is also submitted before us that the lawyer engaged by him did not inform him about result of the consumer complaint or the impugned order. It is further contended on his behalf that for the failure on the part of his lawyer engaged at Kolhapur to intimate him the result of the consumer complaint or the impugned order passed, he should not be suffered and he should be given an opportunity to contest the matter before the District Forum since he contemplates remand of the matter. It is also contended on his behalf that during the relevant period, his mother was sick and was required to be hospitalized. All these contentions are vehemently opposed on behalf of non-applicant/respondent submitting that they are vague.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order produced by the applicant/appellant, it is revealed that first free certified copy was sent to the applicant/appellant and issued accordingly on 19/10/2010. There is no dispute about address mentioned or supplied to the District Forum on which copy was sent. Under the circumstance, mere submission that applicant/appellant had not received said copy cannot be upholding any sufficiency to condone this enormous delay. He ought to have explained all these circumstances, once he had received copy. It was his equal obligation to make enquiry about result of the consumer complaint which he failed to do. Whether lawyer was actually failed in his duties is a different issue, but it is a positive failure on the part of the applicant/appellant to not to make enquiry about result of the consumer complaint once he was aware of pendancy of consumer complaint and since he has engaged a lawyer there. About illness of his mother, it is also a quite vague submission made to the effect that mother was seriously ill and was required to be hospitalized on and often. Unless he reveals the circumstances as to how he was incapacitated by said hospitalization of his mother in that particular period, it cannot be switched to his aid. In the given circumstances, we find that the delay is not satisfactorily explained and holding accordingly, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Application for condonation of delay is rejected and, in the circumstances, the appeal is not entertained as time barred and stands disposed off accordingly.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 26th July 2012.
