First Appeal No. 2009/740

(Arising from the order dated 05.06.2009 passed by District Forum(East) Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.714/2008)


Haier Appliances India P. Ltd., … Appellant/OP

B-1/A, Mohan Cooperative through Sh. Amit Tyagi

Industrial Easte, New Delhi advocate.

Versus



1. Mr. M. Rais Faroooqui ... Respondent/Complainant.
412, 1st Floor, Gali No.11,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

2. Hazarat’s Vision (East)

19, Lalita Park, Vikas Marg,

Delhi


CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)

1. The District Forum vide order dated 05.06.2009, ordered compensation of Rs.22,700/- because the washing machine purchased by the respondent No.1 was found defective. The proceedings against the manufacturer (OP No.2) appellant and the dealer (OP No.1) respondent No.2 proceeded ex-parte, since they did not appear despite the notice. The manufacturing company has now filed this appeal with three months delay and in accordance with section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alongwith an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit.

2. We have heard Sh. Amit Tyagi, Counsel for the appellant on the delay condonation application.

3. The ground on which the condonation has been sought is that the envelop containing the certified copy of the award was misplaced and it was only after it was discovered the appellant entrusted the case to its counsel for appropriate legal proceedings.

4. It has not been clarified in the delay condonaton application why and under what circumstances the envelop containing certified copy of the award came to be misplaced and how it was discovered. It has also not been mentioned on what date the envelop was recovered and on what date the matter was entrusted to the counsel for legal action. The law requires that in seeking codonation of delay each day delay has to be explained to satisfy the court for the causes of delay.

5. The explanation offered by the appellant is casual and cursory and should not and cannot be accepted. It has to be noticed that this not a case of three days delay but of three months delay.

6. In these circumstances, the delay canot be condoned. The application is therefore dismissed and in consequence whereof the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.

7. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant subject to complete of formalities.

8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

9. Announced on the 11th day of November 2009.