SUNITA Vs. A S LALLY AND ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed this appeal on 1.7.2004 against impugned judgment and order dated 14.8.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.231 of 2000 vide which the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The appeal has been filed after a considerable delay of more than one and-a-half years. The sole ground on which the delay has been sought to be condoned is that the appellant did not received the copy of the order sent by the District Forum after the complaint was decided on 14.8.2002, which was incidentally the date of hearing the arguments as well. The learned Counsel for the appellant moved an application on 21.5.2004 for supply of certified copy of the order, which was issued on 25.5.2004. The appeal was, however, filed on 1.7.2004. In para 5 of the application, it has been mentioned that no intimation regarding the order was sent either to the appellant or to her Counsel nor any copy of the order was sent to any one of them. In para 8, it has been mentioned that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional but due to the reasons mentioned above.

(3.) An affidavit has been filed by the appellant in support of the application seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been deposed in para 4 that the applicant approached her Counsel to enquire from him about the fate of the complaint filed on her behalf and when enquired from the record of the Forum, he came to know that the case was decided on 14.8.2002 itself. The date on which the appellant approached her Counsel to enquire has not been given in para 4 of the affidavit. The date when the Counsel enquired from the District Forum has also not been disclosed. Though it was not pleaded in the application nor deposed to in the affidavit, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was having matrimonial dispute with her husband and it might be that the certified copy of the order sent by the District Forum have reached the husband of the appellant instead of the appellant.