SATISH KUMAR Vs. HEMANT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and perused the material filed in support thereof. We have also perused the objections filed by the respondent against the delay condonation application/affidavit and also heard learned Counsel for respondent.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred with a delay of 214 days against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 162 of 2009. The appeal was filed before this Commission on 3.5.2011. The delay condonation application as well as the affidavit reveal that the complainant, whose consumer complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, could not file the appeal well in time on account of the reason that he could not arrange the proper expenditure for filing the appeal as well as fee to be paid to the Counsel. The only ground taken in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application is that the complainant is a very poor person and could not arrange the funds for filing the appeal in time. It is important to mention here that the appellant was the complainant before the District Forum and his consumer complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. He, therefore, filed this appeal in the capacity of complainant - consumer and no Court fee/ statutory amount was required to be deposited by him before this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. Therefore, it appears to be a lame excuse on the part of the appellant that he could not arrange proper funds for filing the appeal. The appellant has not given proper explanation with regard to the delay of 214 days in filing the appeal. There are several decisions of the different State Commissions as well as the Hon'ble National Commission and also of different High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point that in the delay condonation application/affidavit, there should be an explanation of each day's delay. The affidavit to be filed in support of the delay condonation application should disclose sufficient cause or reason for cause of delay in filing the appeal. In the instant case, the complainant, who is the appellant before this Commission, has offered no satisfactory explanation for cause of 214 days' delay in filing the appeal. We, therefore, find ourselves in total disagreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As we have expressed our view that there is no satisfactory explanation for filing the appeal with a delay of 214 days, hence we are unable to allow the delay condonation application.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 1.9.2010 is also dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by time. No order as to costs.