CYMA EXPORTS PVT LTD Vs. MS NANDINI SRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the complainant had filed complaints before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant where after hearing the parties allowed the complaints. Aggrieved by this order, appeals have been filed by the appellant. The parties were heard and when we wanted to hear the appellant on the question of limitation, parties remained absent in spite of service, hence, we go on to decide the question of limitation as per material on record.

(2.) The State Commission passed the order on 24.7.2000. As per copy of the order on record, copies were delivered on 25.7.2000. Appeals have been filed in December, 2000. In the affidavit filed for condonation of delay it is stated that the appellant never received a copy of the order supplied by the State Commission as their office is in Mumbai and the case was being considered in Bangalore. As per affidavit filed by the appellants, for the first they came to know of the order on 19.10.2000 via a legal Notice served on the appellants on behalf of one of the complainants Mr. J.R. Kapoor. Thereafter, copy of the order was received from Mr. Kapoor on 20.11.2000 and appeal was filed in December, 2000. Though it is not stated in these clear terms but purport of the affidavit is that date of knowledge should be taken as 20.11.2000 in view of which delay in filing of this appeal need to be condoned in the interest of justice. We see nothing on record to state as to under what circumstances the appellant did not get the copy. Admittedly, as per practice the State Commission sent the order to the parties by post. Even if we accept for argument sake that the appellant did not get the copy, this is not in dispute that his date of knowledge of the order is 19.10.2000. There is nothing on record either in the Memo of Appeal or in the accompanying affidavit to show as to what steps were taken to get a copy of the order and file an appeal as expeditiously as possible after coming to know of the order on 19.10.2000. Waiting for a copy of the order to arrive from Mr. Kapur and to start calculating this as the basis for date of knowledge, is to say the least, shall be perverse. Months, after the orders are reserved by the State Commission and passed on 24.7.2000, no one from the appellant evinces any interest to know the outcome of the complaint filed by the complainants in which appellant was the opposite party. If we take 19.10.2000 as the date of knowledge and generously grant thirty days to file the appeal, yet we see a delay of over 32 days for which no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Certain rights had accrued to the complainants by way of order of the State Commission and they cannot be kept deprived of the same, for any carelessness on the part of other party. Apex Court has severally held that delay of each day has to be explained, here the delay is not only explained; but efforts are made to cover it up.

(3.) In our view sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay, hence these appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation with cost of Rs. 2,000/- in each case payable by the appellant to the respondent/complainants. Appeals dismissed.