Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Mr.Gavli, Advocate files say opposing condonation of delay application. He files affidavit also and certain documents and rulings. Heard Advocate Mr.Misar for the Appellant and Mr.Gavli, Advocate for the Respondent on delay condonation application.
(2) Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed on 07.03.2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune, in Consumer Complaint No.37/2010 original Opponent – M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal. Along with the appeal the Counsel for the Appellant has filed delay condonation application since there is delay of 22 days in filing the appeal, that is what has been mentioned by the Appellant’s Counsel in the delay condonation application. This fact is disputed by the Respondent’s Counsel who has produced on record a certified copy of the outward register maintained by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. In the said register it has been clearly mentioned that ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Appellant herein, has received the certified copy of the impugned order on 05.04.2011 through Advocate Mr.N.S. Kale. So, it is from this date the limitation starts and thus, there is delay of 32 days in filing this appeal and since delay of 22 days is only sought to be condoned by filing an application for condonation of delay, we cannot condone the delay of 32 days. Delay of 32 days has been calculated with the help of both the Counsels. Mr.Misar, Advocate for the Appellant fairly conceded that there is delay of 32 days but he banked upon the fact that the Insurance Company has put a stamp about it having received the copy of the impugned order on 15.04.2012. In fact, there is no signature who has received it. It should have been signed by somebody then only the stamp could have been given some importance, if any.
(3) That apart, since there is delay of 32 days and since condonation of delay application along with affidavit mentions the delay of 22 days, we hold that Misc.Application filed for condonation of delay cannot be allowed to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. In the circumstances, we have no option but to reject the application filed for condonation of delay. Hence, the order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application No.342/2011 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
(ii) Consequently, Appeal No.635/2011 does not survive for consideration.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 15th June, 2012.
