ORAL

A/285/2017

Gaurav Bansal & others V/s Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Department & another                              

                   09-01-2018

 None appeared for appellants.

Sri Prasoon Kumar Rai, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No.2.

None appeared for respondent No.1 despite sufficient service of notice.

Perusal of record shows that appellants were absent on 13-02-2017 and 21-06-2017. Today also appellants are absent and none appeared for them.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 that the whole insured amount has been deposited before District Consumer Forum by respondent No.2 in compliance of impugned judgment and order. The respondent No.2 is ready and willing to comply impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum. Respondent No.2 does not want to file appeal against impugned judgment and order.

Considering the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as absence of appellants for consecutive three dates it appears that the appellants are not interested to press this appeal as well as delay condonation application. Therefore, the delay condonation application is rejected as not pressed and appeal is dismissed as time barred.

                            President