REKHA GUPTA Vs. BOMBAY HOSPITAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) on 26.6.2002. The certified copy of the order was prepared on 12.6.2002 and sent to the parties including the appellant by post free of charge. It has been alleged that the copy was received by the Chandigarh Office of the appellant on 15.7.2002 and the appeal was to be filed by 14.8.2002. It has, however, been filed on 3.9.2002.

(2.) There is delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. According to the case of the appellant, the delay occurred due to the fact that the dealing office at Mumbai received the communication from the Chandigarh Office for permission to file the appeal on or about 21.7.2002 when the entire office was under process of shifting including restructuring and placement of staff from Mumbai Main Branch to Branch Office at Belapur, New Mumbai. The opinion of the Solicitors were sought and the papers were sent to the Delhi Office which is the concerned office with advice to take steps to file the appeal against the impugned order. The Delhi Office of the appellant received advice from its Mumbai Office on or about 11.8.2002 and incidentally the Delhi Office of the appellant was under process of shifting from Herald House, II Floor, 5-A, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi and it took some time to connect the papers and refer. The papers were then transmitted to Chandigarh Office for filing the appeal which was eventually filed on 3.9.2002. It is alleged that there is bona fide delay of 20 days in filing the appeal and the same is due to the factors mentioned above.

(3.) Notice of application was sent to the respondent who sent written reply to the application seeking condonation of delay. It was contended that the Branch Manager could have filed the appeal in time. It was further contended that even if Chandigarh Branch Manager is not competent to file the appeal directly then why he had filed his affidavit under his signatures and seal. The objection raised in the written reply which was received on 23.10.2002 are to be read along with another written letter received from the respondent which is dated 11.12.2002 wherein, in para No.3, it was averred as under : "3. Please decide the appeal on basis of my written arguments and merits of the case. UTI cannot get all the pardons for its delay in payments and delay in appeal even. "