JAKSON LIMITED Vs. R.D. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment was pronounced on 22 -09 -2015. He filed appeal on 22 -02 -2016. After deduction of 30 days the delay should have come to 119 days but the State Commission has mentioned that there was delay of 148 days. However, we are of the clear view that even that much delay is fatal. Moreover, the State Commission committed no mistake. The learned counsel admits that the petitioner's own application mentions the wrong facts. The delay is explained in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay. The said paras are hereby reproduced:

(2.) A bare perusal of this explanation clearly goes to show that the petitioner has made lame excuses. There appears to be no sufficient ground. It clearly shows the negligence, passivity and inaction on the part of the company. The company must be aware that the period of filing the appeal is 30 days only. The approval paper should have been sent immediately or through speed post or dasti. The delay was not explained to our satisfaction.

(3.) Now let us turn to the merits of this case. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this DG set of Jakson purchased by the complainant was meant for commercial purpose and the same was installed in his premises. The counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the copy of minutes of the meeting held on 03 -03 -2012, wherein the complainant company permitted the complainant to have a DG set for residential purposes.