AMAR WHEELS PVT. LTD. vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IT is an application for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 10.10.2001 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

THE applicant-appellant had for the first time filed the appeal without the certified copy of the impugned order of the District Forum. As the appeal was not competent without the certified copy of the impugned order, vide order dated 24.12.2001, papers were returned to the applicant-appellant and the following order was passed : "Appeal has been filed without certified copy of the impugned order. Appeal is not competent without the certified copy of the order. Let the papers be returned to the appellant." THEreafter, the applicant-appellant sent a letter dated 19.2.2002 on which the following order was passed : "This case has been put up before us on receipt of a letter dated 19.2.2002 of the Director for Amar Wheels Private Limited, Ludhiana. Relevant portion of the letter reads as under : "SUB : APPEAL NO. 1273 OF 2001-M/S. AMAR WHEELS PVT. LTD. v. PSEB. Dear Sir, As directed by the Hon''ble President of the Commission vide his orders dated 24.12.2001, we are again submitting our appeal in the above case after enclosing certified copy of the orders of the lower Court. We request you to allow further proceedings in the case and intimation in this regard be submitted to us. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, for AMAR WHEELS PVT. LTD. Sd/- DIRECTOR."

At the outset, it may be stated that it has wrongly been mentioned in the letter that any direction was given by the President of the Commission to the appellant, vide order dated 24.12.2001 of this Commission to again submit the appeal. THE relevant order of this Commission dated December 24, 2001 reads as under : "Appeal has been filed without certified copy of the impugned order. Appeal is not competent without the certified copy of the order. Let the papers be returned to the appellant." Vide the above said order of this Commission it was stated that the appeal was not competent without the certified copy of the order and the papers were ordered to be returned to the appellant. In any case, if the appellant wants to file an appeal along with a certified copy of the order then even if the letter mentioned above written by the Director, Amar Wheels Private Limited is considered as an appeal then it is filed beyond a period of 30 days in filing the appeal but no application for condonation of delay has been filed. In these circumstances, again the papers be returned to the appellant on his given address for proper action in accordance with law, if so advised."

An application has been filed now on 6.6.2002 for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing the appeal against the impugned order dated 10.10.2001. It has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application that the delay in this case was only due to late receipt of the certified copy of the orders dated 10.10.2001. Nothing else has been mentioned as to under what circumstances delay of 188 days took place in filing the appeal.

Admittedly, certified copy of the impugned order dated 10.10.2001 of the District Forum was received by the applicant-appellant on 29.10.2001. This factual position is admitted and not denied even by the Counsel for the applicant-appellant Shri Lalit Thakur, Advocate. It''s not understood as to why the certified copy could not be filed along with the filing of the appeal on 29.11.2001 when merely grounds of appeal were submitted by the applicant-appellant to the Commission. No ground has been mentioned even in this application for condonation of delay as to why the certified copy which was in possession of the applicant-appellant at the time of presenting the grounds of appeal to the Commission was not filed at the time of submitting the grounds.

IN these circumstances, we do not find any ground to condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. This application for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing the appeal is, thus, dismissed. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed as belated. Appeal dismissed.