Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member None is present for the appellant. Respondent present in person, files reply on delay condonation application. We heard respondent in person. It is dispute between member of the society and the society. The impugned award was passed on 20/03/2010 and the copy of which alleged to have been received by the appellant on 10/04/2010. Thereafter, this appeal is preferred with this application for condonation of delay of 58 days. The reasons given in Para 2 &3 are as under :- “2. The Applicants state that the order passed by the Hon’ble District Forum on 20/03/2010 and the same was received by the Applicants on 10/04/2010, by an ordinary post at their address. The Applicants state that the concerned person who has been authorized by the Society to deal with the present matter was out of station for summer vacation for one and half months, hence he was unable to put the order before the Committee Members of the Society. The Applicants state after coming from the summer vacation, he has put forward the order received by him with the Committee Members and as he is a layman he was under the impression as per the order that the Hon’ble consumer District Forum, Thane, has granted three months time, hence there is a 3 months time to prefer the appeal, therefore, he has put the said proposal with the Committee Members after coming from the native place. 3. The Applicants state that after putting the said matter with the Committee Members, the Committee Members have passed a Resolution and accordingly Advocate has filed the present appeal as there is a delay of 58 days. The Applicants state that they have good chance to succeed in the matter on merit and in the interest of justice the delay caused which is not a purposeful delay, but it is occurred inadvertently as the Committee Members are laymen and they are not aware the provisions of Law, therefore, the delay is to be condoned.” This application is vehemently opposed by the respondent. Application is supported by affidavit of Shri Arun Vasudeo Borkar, which is a vague affidavit. No where it is mentioned the name of authorised person, who was to take care of the proceeding and who did not place the matter before the Managing Committee. Even, members of the Managing Committee are absent. Member of the Managing Committee/Secretary is supposed to take necessary action. The reasons as given aforesaid are vague, nay, lacks particulars and we are not at all convinced that the applicant/appellant has sufficiently explained the delay. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- -: ORDER :- 1. Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. In the given circumstances, appeal is not entertained. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
