IMPORTANT POINT
While condoning delay court should not forget opposite party altogether.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The petitioner has got 62000 members. Club Mahindra Holidays Membership is a holiday product which entitles its members to avail 7 days of holidays every year, in any of the resorts of Club Mahindra in India and abroad for the allotted season. The complainant, Basant Kumar H. Khandelwal purchased a Club Mahindra Holidays Membership. The complainant also paid certain amounts to the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant was not satisfied with the services and he filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party.

2. The District Forum, Akola vide its order dated 31.3.2009 allowed the complaint of Basant Kumar Hira Lal ji Khandelwal and directed the petitioner-opposite party, Mahindra Holidays Resort India Ltd. not to demand enhanced annual maintenance charges of Rs.30,585/-, refund the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- towards membership fees with 9% interest from 20.5.2008 and pay Rs.10,000/- for compensation and Rs.1,000/- cost of the complaint.

3. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the case was barred by time. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition has been filed.

4. In the application for condonation of delay submitted before the State Commission, the following averments were made. Copy of impugned judgment and order was required to be sent to Chennai head office, where the company of the petitioner is situated, for obtaining instructions. Secondly, the case papers were in Marathi language and officials of head office at Chennai could not understand Marathi. Translation into English was required which consumed a considerable amount of time resulting into delay in filing the appeal in question. The State Commission came to the conclusion that translation from Marathi to English could have been done within a week.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, Mumbai High Court authority reported in Ashishkant Prabookant Sen and Ors. v. Jagoba S/o Dashrath Jibhkate and Ors.1 was cited. In that case, there was delay of six and a half months. Mumbai High Court had condoned the said delay. Again, another authority by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J and K v. Mohd. Maqbool Sufi and Ors.2 wherein a delay of 97 days was condoned. In these authorities, it was held as the appellant was required to obtain approval by sending the case papers through different departments, there was just and reasonable ground to condone the delay.

6. However, the State Commission observed that these authorities were not applicable to this case because the petitioner had not disclosed the details as to when the case papers were sent and when the approval was obtained.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was brought to our notice that another connected case was pending before another bench of this Commission where there was delay of 104 days. That case Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal and another, in revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 was decided on 21.5.2012 and delay was not condoned.

8. We are of the considered view that the facts of that case were different. Firstly, there was delay of 104 days, secondly the amount involved in the case was meager. We are of the considered view that law cited before the State Commission reported in State of J and K. and Ors. v. Mohd. Maqbool Sufi and Ors.3 is applicable to this case because the delay of 70 days under the circumstances is condonable subject to payment of costs. In the case of State of J. and K. and Ors. v. Mohd. Maqbool Sufi and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-

“It is not in dispute that there has been a delay of 97 days in filing the appeal at the instance of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is well settled that for the purpose of filing an appeal, the file has to be routed through different departments of the State which require some time to take a final decision whether the letters patent appeal shall be filed again