Date   : 07.03.2013

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

1.       Adv.Shri.A.A.Mukhedkar present for appellant, Adv.Shri.A.U.Patil appearing for M/s M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent is present. We have heard both the advocates on delay condonation application.

2.       Advocate of appellant submitted that delay of 135 days shown in the application is counted from the date of impugned order which was passed on 18.2.2012.  He further submitted that actually said order was issued by District Forum below on 11.4.2012 and it was received by appellant on 13.4.2012 and if delay is counted from 13.4.2012 then same delay comes to only 79 days.  He further submitted that delay is explained in the application to the effect that mother of complainant namely Smt.Manorama W/o Bapurao Machile expired on 26.1.2012 and from that date for about six months the appellant and his family members were in immense grief and sorrow.  They were not in a condition of preferring appeal and that they were required to perform religious rites and traditional customary rituals for about six months on account of death of Smt.Manorama.  He further submitted that copy of death certificate is produced on record.  He also submitted that appellant was required to appoint advocate at Aurangabad for preferring appeal and hence he went to Aurangabad and met advocate who asked him to bring all relevant documents to prefer appeal. He went back to Latur and collected the file from his advocate at Latur who had conducted the complaint before District Forum. He went to Aurangabad on 10.7.2012 and since there was summer vacation to this Commission appeal could not be filed during said vacation and same was filed on 01.08.2012.  He further submitted that as delay has been properly explained and as delay is not required to be explained day to day, same may be condoned.

3.       On the other hand, advocate of respondent opposed the application on the ground that delay is not properly explained and application is also very vague.  He further submitted that though mother of appellant had expired on 26.1.2012 appeal could have been filed after taking immediate steps within reasonable time. He further submitted that no date is given when appellant had approached to his advocates at Latur and Aurangabad and hence delay which is of 79 days occurred after receiving copy of order cannot be condoned.

4.       We have perused the papers placed before us. The death certificate produced before us shows that mother of appellant died on 26.1.2012. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 18.2.2012 i.e. after the death of appellant`s mother.  We find that delay is of 79 days as it is to be counted from the receipt of copy impugned order i.e. 13.4.2012. We do not accept the ground as proper ground that entire family of appellant was under grief and sorrow for such a long period of six months due to death of Manorama.  Even otherwise we also find that appellant could have contacted advocate within short time after receiving copy of order on 13.4.2012. No date wise explanation is given in the application as to when appellant had contacted advocate of Aurangabad and when advise was given to bring all the documents and when again advocate of Latur was contacted by appellant.  We also find that no such time can be consumed for obtaining documents when appellant had himself filed complaint before Forum below. It can be presumed that documents could have been obtained even within one day from the previous advocate of complainant.  Moreover there was no summer vacation on 10.7.2012.  There was no reason for waiting from 10.7.2012 to 1^st August 2012 after copies of the judgment and other papers were received on 10.7.2012. We find that appellant has not given proper convincing reason about delay of 79 days occurred in preferring appeal. Hence application deserves to be rejected.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Misc.application made for condonation of delay, bearing M.A.No.204/2012 is hereby rejected.

2.     Consequently, appeal is time barred and it stands dismissed.

3.     No order as to cost.

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

Pronounced and dictated

On 07.03.2013