ORDER :

N.A. BRITTO, PRESIDENT

1. By application dated 09/04/13, the Applicant/OP No.2 seeks to condone delay of 13 days in filing the appeal against the impugned order dated 15/10/2012.

2. The first objection taken, by Shri R. Rao, on behalf of Respondent No.1/ Complainant, is that the delay to be condoned is 144 days i.e. from the date of the order dated 15/10/2012 as contemplated by section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. We are not inclined to accept the said objection taken on behalf of the Complainant.

3.1 Records would show that the C.C. was adjourned for final order on 09/08/2011 and thereafter it was adjourned on 13 occasions and ultimately the order was pronounced on 15/10/2012 and we are informed, not by the lr. advocates, but by the office that the copy was ready on 13/02/2013 as can be seen from letter of the same date by which the copies were forwarded to the parties. We are told that, that was the practice followed.

The order was pronounced on 15/10/12 and both the parties were absent on that day nor were represented by their advocates.

3.2 Shri R. Rao lr. advocate would contend that the Complainant had been attending the Lr. District Forum from 09/08/11, onwards, and if that be so, there was no reason for the applicant/OP No.2 not to have attended the Forum for the pronouncement of the order. Here, we find that lr. advocate Shri Rao is entirely not right and there have been occasions when the Complainant also remained absent on several of the adjourned dates for pronouncing the order.

3.3 We could not have expected the parties to attend the Forum again and again only to be told that the pronouncement of the order was being adjourned and they could have certainly waited for the receipt of the free copy which they are entitled to in terms of Rule 4 (10) of the Goa Consumer Protection Rules, 87 r/w Regulation 18(6) r/w 21(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

3.4 The record would also show that the free copy, certified to be true copy, on the basis of which the appeal is filed, was dispatched to the Applicant/ OP No.2 by registered A.D. on 20/02/13, and was received at their registered office in Mumbai on 25/02/13 and there is no dispute about it. Moreover, it can be seen from the records that on 2 occasions i.e. on 28/11/11 as well as on 12/01/12 the Lr. District Forum was pleased to record in the rozanama that the order would be communicated to the parties when it is ready, and, therefore it was certainly not expected of the parties to have attended the Lr. District Forum on each and every day the C.C. was adjourned for order and therefore the limitation has got to be reckoned from 25/02/13. This is one view of the matter. We hope that the Lr. District Forum henceforth will follow the instructions administratively issued to the Lr. District Forum that no order should be passed unless it is ready in all respects and passed in accordance with Regulation 18(7) of the 2005 Regulations.

4. Shri P.S. Rao, lr. advocate has placed reliance on Housing Board, Haryana, I (1996) CLT 108 (SC)=1995 (5) SCC 672 to say that the period of 30 days must be counted from the date of communication of the order duly signed and dated as provided by Rule 4 (10) (of Haryana CP Rules, 1998) which is akin to Rule 4(10) of Goa Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Indeed, the Apex Court has now held that:

“If the rule itself enjoins a duty for communicating the order of the District Forum duly signed and dated to the parties free of charge, there will hardly be an occasion for the parties to make an application for obtaining a certified copy thereof. Thus, Section 15 of the Act cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with Rules 4(10) and 8(3) of the Rules and a combined reading of Section 15 and the Rules reproduced above gives an impression that the purpose, object and intention of these statutory provisions is to protect the interest of the parties before the District Forum by making it obligatory on the District Fo