CITIBANK N A Vs. GANESH NARAIN SABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 3rd of July, 1991 passed ex-parte against the Appellant by the State Commission of Maharashtra in Complaint No.110 6f 1990. At the outset, we may notice the reasons which made the State Commission to proceed ex-parte against the Appellant herein :

(2.) In the appeal memorandum, the appellant has explained that their written version by way of rejoinder to the complaint was sent by registered post by them on the 11th of March, 1991 and the same was delivered in the office of the State Commission on the 14th March, 1991, but apparently his rejoinder was not placed before the State Commission with the result that the State Commission held that no written version had been filed by the appellant -opposite party, in response to the notice from the Commission within the period of 30 days. This, however, is not a fatal flaw in the order of the State Commission inasmuch as the written version was required to be filed within 30 days of the service of notice dated 18th January, 1991 issued by the State Commission. There were other hearing fixed for 16th of April, 1991 ,20th of April, 1991, 26th of April, 1991 and finally on 3rd of July, 1991. The appellant-opposite party remained absent on these dates of hearing.

(3.) The appeal before this Commission is also out of time. The Order of 3rd July, 1991 of the State Commission, according to the appellant, was received by them on or about 2nd of August, 1991. The appeal was filed on 18th September, 1991. There is appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay has been sought to be explained by stating that the order of the State Commission appealed against, though received by the Bank on 2nd of August, 1991, it was received in the concerned department of the Bank only in the third week of August, 1991. Further, the concerned officer of that department happened to be on leave. So it was only after 4th of September, 1991 that the papers were sent to the Bank's Attorney for drafting and filing the necessary appeal. On the face of it, the reasons given for delay in submission of the appeal are entirely unacceptable and this Commission finds no justification for condoning delay in filing the appeal.