S.K.M. Lodha, President: The appellants who were opposite parties before the District Forum, Dholpur have filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986("the Act" herein) against the order dated 30.1.1991 passed by the District Forurn, Dholpur in Complaint Case No. 14/91. The complainant respondent alleged that the meter reading entered in certain telephone bills issued by the Telephone Department in respect of telephone No. 356 were not correct and that it has disconnected the complainant's telephone without giving any prior notice or information to him. The complainant prayed for restoration of the telephone and corrections of his telephone bills and also for award of damages for the loss caused to him on account of the disconnection. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. The District Forum as per majority decision dated 30.1.1991 accepted the complainant's complaint and directed that on the complainant depositing Rs. 571/-, the opposite parties should restore the telephone and that the complainant shall deposit the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- in four instalments with future bills and in case of any default the opposite party shall be free to disconnect the telephone. The President of the District Forum in his dissenting order held that no relief can be granted to the complainant under section 14 of the Act. The appeal against the majority order dated 30.1.1991 was filed on 30.3.1991. The memo of appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit of Shri M.C. Gupta, Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Bharatpur.

2. The office reported that the appeal is barred by 29 days. On 3.6.1991 notice was ordered to be issued to the appellants to show cause why this appeal be not rejected as barred by time. Notice was served on appellant No.1 but nobody was present on 24.8.1991.

The appeal was submitted by Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Jaipur on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Sudhir Gupta did not appear on 24.8.1991. He also did not appear on 30.8.1991. The case was posted on 31.8.1991. It was adjourned on that day to consider the question of limitation in presenting the appeal. However, on 16.9.1991 Mr. Ashok Kumar Munshi of Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate appeared. He requested that the appeal may be taken up for considering the question of limitation on 17.9.1991 as Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants is out of station. The appeal was adjourned to 17.9.1991. On 17.9.1991 nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants.

3. We are called upon to consider the question whether the appellant has succeeded in making out sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation and, therefore, delay should be condoned. The order under appeal is dated 30.1.1991. One day is at the most. time Spent in obtaining the certified copy. The appeal was presented on 30.3.1991. Thus, there is delay of 29 days. Paras 2 & 3 of the application are as follows:

"2. That the copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against was received by the Applicant-appellant on 1.2.1991. Thereafter the copy of the order was sent to the office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom. Jaipur at Jaipur where the matter was examined at various levels for the purpose of filing of Appeals before this Hon'ble Commission. The matter was consulted with the Department's Legal Advisor and also with officials in the Law Ministry at New Delhi. The decision to file the appeal against the aforesaid order could only be taken on 26th March, 1991 after consultation and decision at various levels. Immediately thereafter on 27.3.1991 the Department approached the Counsel for filing of Appeal in the matter before this Hon'ble Commission. This appeal is now being filed on this day of 30th March, 1991 without any further delay."

"3. That as stated hereinabove the delay in filing of the above noted appeal is not intentional but on account of bona