The court emphasized the importance of providing a convincing explanation for delay and maintaining consistency in affidavits, as these factors can significantly impact the outcome of an appeal.

ORDER :

SURJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

M.A. No.936/2012.

1. Heard and gone through the record.

2. Appellant has assailed the order dated 21.11.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Palampur, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed before it, has been dismissed in default. Appeal was filed on 31.12.2012, or say after one year and one month, though the limitation is one month. Therefore, application for condonation of delay has also been moved.

3. In the application, it is stated that when the impugned order was passed, appellant applied to the learned District Forum for restoration of complaint, under mistaken belief that the Forum had jurisdiction to restore the complaint, but that application was dismissed on 14.3.2012, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rejeev Hitendra Pathak and Others v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another, VII (2011) SLT 404=(2011) 9 SCC 541.

4. As the appeal is not within time, even from the date of dismissal of the application, for restoration, i.e. 14.3.2012, it is stated in the application for condonation of delay that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 14.3.2012, appellant could not approach the Commission on time, because he happened to misplace the file in his house and the same was traced only on 2.11.2012.

5. We are not convinced by this explanation. Though affidavit is there in support of the plea, yet the error in the age of the deponent as written in this affidavit which is either 52 years or 82 years is different from the age written in the affidavit, which the appellant filed with the original complaint, before learned District Forum, in the year, 2011. In the said affidavit his age is mentioned 61 years. Therefore, we doubt, if the affidavit submitted with the application, is that of the appellant himself.

6. In view of the above stated position, application for condonation of delay, (M.A. No. 936/2012) in filing the appeal, is dismissed.

First Appeal No. 348/2012

7. As a sequel to the rejection of application for condonation of delay, appeal is also dismissed.

8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.