ELECTRONS AND LASERS P LTD Vs. PROMILLA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Promilla Menon and her daughter Nalini Menon, hereinafter referred to as complainants purchased one inverter set alongwith four 12v batteries from the appellant for a sum of Rs.26,280/-. The amount was paid by three cheques of Rs.5,000/- dated 10.6.93, Rs.5,280/- dated 15.6.93 and Rs.16,000/- dated 16.6.93. After installation, the set caught fire. Fortunately the main switch was switched off in time so that no damage could be caused to the household effects, or the inmates. The OPs were informed and they replaced the set with a new one on 18.6.93. While the new set was being installed, again the same caught fire and a third set was brought for replacement, the next day. The third set also met the same fate while, it was being tested for installation. The complainants did not want to take any further risk and, therefore, conveyed to the OP that they were not interested in going in for the same type of inverter. They wanted the money to be refunded. The OP, however, failed to do so. The complainants served a legal notice on 30.6.93 and filed the present complaint before the District Forum. The OPs failed to contest. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to refund Rs.26,280/- alongwith 15% interest, per annum, besides Rs.2,000/- on account of costs and compensation. Aggrieved by the order, the OP have preferred this appeal.

(2.) None appeared for the parties when the appeal was called on for hearing. Later on, the Counsel for respondents appeared and he was asked to submit a brief note on arguments if so advised. He failed to appear thereafter. We have gone through the records.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, parawise reply to the grounds of appeal have been filed. The first question is whether the appeal is within limitation. The appellant received a certified copy of the order on 1.12.94. The present appeal was filed on 10.1.95 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The ground stated in the application is that the appellant handed over papers for filing the appeal to their Advocate on 30.12.94, their Advocate Mr. Vijay Gupta, however, remained confined to bed on account of viral fever for about ten days and hence the delay. It is a settled law that limitation for the purposes of delay is reckoned from the day of communication of certified copy of the order to the appellant. It is further settled law that a party should not be made to suffer for the fault, if any, on the part of his Counsel. The application for condonation is supported by affidavit of Mr. Y. P. Singh, Director of the appellant Company. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances brought on record, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.