Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1.      Advocate Mr.Atul Vastani is present for the appellant and Advocate Mr.B.M.Kharkate is present for respondent No.1. None is present for respondent No.2. We have heard Advocate Mr.Vastani and Advocate Mr.Kharkate on the application made for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. The delay in the application shows is of 101 days as occurred in filing of the appeal. The learned Advocate of appellant/original opposite party No.2 explained the said delay as mentioned in the said application. In short he submitted that the impugned judgment/order was passed by the Forum on 08/12/2009. At the relevant time Mr.Gyaneshwar Deoraoji Werdhane who was the General Manager of the appellant was looking after the complaint before the Consumer Forum of Gondia. The said Mr.Gyaneshwar Deoraoji Werdhane did not inform the appellant the result of the case and did not furnish the certified copy of the order. He left the job of the appellant some time in the first week of the January 2010 or there about. The appellant-company appointed Shri Prakash Bhaiyaji Sahare who filed the present application in the month of February 2010. He came to know in the first week of March, 2010 while on tour to Gondia from one of his dealer about the decision of the case. Accordingly he informed the appellant immediately. The appellant company then contacted the counsel at Gondia on 11/03/2010 and requested to get the certified copy of the order. Accordingly the counsel of the appellant on very next date i.e. on 12/03/2010 applied for certified copy of impugned order and obtained the same on 22/03/2010. Then going through the judgment, legal advice was received by appellant and was decided to file the appeal against that order before this Commission. The papers were then handed over to the Advocate on 30/03/2010. Thereafter Advocate drafted the appeal memo and filed the appeal on 12/04/2010 before this Commission. Thus the learned Advocate of the appellant submitted that as appellant is a Body Corporate and it was totally dependent on its General Manager namely Mr.Gyaneshwar Deoraoji Werdhane who left the job and did not inform the appellant about the decision of the case and due to that reason appeal could not be filed within limitation of 30 days. Therefore he requested that under these circumstances when the delay  was not occurred intentionally, but due to the reasons stated above, the said delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. He also submitted that due to the delay the appellant is not getting any thing and it is a reputed company and therefore it is necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the appellant in appeal. He therefore requested that application may be granted subject to suitable cost.

 2.      On the other hand Advocate Mr.D.H.Kharkate strongly opposed the application by filing the reply to the said application. He also argued on the lines of the said reply. He submitted that in the application it is not mentioned by the appellant as to how and why Mr.Gyaneshwar Deoraoji Werdhane has left the job. He also submitted that the delay of 101 days is not explained satisfactorily as required under law. He relied on the decision in the following cases in support of his submission that the application is liable to be rejected.

1. Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By LRS…..V/s…..Exe.Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and another,  2008 (13) SCALE 773.
2. Sangli Bank Ltd.,….V/s….Encon Automotive (Pvt) Ltd.,2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 4.
3. Victor Albuquerque…..V/s….Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 437.

3.      Thus the main submission of the appellant is that as the concerned General Manager of the appellant left the job without giving information about the case or decision therein, appeal could not be filed within time. However we find that there is no document to show as to how and when the said General Manager Mr.Gyaneshwar Deoraoji Werdhane left the job. It is also not explained by appellant as to why the Advocate of the appellant/original opposite party No.2 engaged before the Forum did not inform the appellant about the final decision in the said complaint. Moreover we also find that it is not explained in the application as to whether the free copy of impugned order sent by the Forum to opposite party No.2 was received by the appellant.

4.        It is also seen that the another incumbent namely Shri Prakash Bhaiyaji Sahare who was appointed in place of Mr.Gyaneshwar Deoraoji Werdhane did not suo-moto made enquiry about the progress of the complaint and when he went on to Gondia, he came in contact with some dealer and found that the complaint has been decided. Thus it is the very casual approach of the appellant in not keeping the track of the complaint and not suo-moto seeking information about result of the complaint. Moreover it was also the responsibility of the Prakash Bhaiyaji Sahare after joining as a General Manager to su-moto make enquiry about pending cases  against appellant and decision if any therein. He very casually got the information from dealer. Thus in view of the casual approach of the appellant as above, we find that the delay of 101 days occurred in filing of the appeal can not be condoned.

5.      Moreover it is also seen that the Consumer Protection Act,1986 provides the expeditious disposal of the appeals filed under section 15 of the said Act. If such a long delay of 101 days without satisfactorily explanation is condoned then it will defeat the very object of expeditiously disposal of appeals under the said Act. We find that delay of 101 is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant and it can not be condoned for the reasons given in the application. In the result, the application deserves to be rejected.

// ORDER //

1. The application made for condonation of delay is rejected.
2. The appeal is dismissed as time barred.
3. No order as to cost in appeal.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.