STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION REGIONAL BENCH CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/CB1/27/MA/236/2023 IN SC/CB1/27/A/503/2023 Superintendent Engineer, M S E D C L , Latur PRESENT ADDRESS - Sale Galli, Tq & Dist Latur ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Savita Ganeshrao Tarde PRESENT ADDRESS - Holkar Nagar, Ambejogai Road, Tq & Dist Latur ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. DR.NISHA A. CHAVHAN , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. N C KUMBRE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Adv S N Tandale (Advocate)

DATED: 30/04/2025

ORDER

Per Dr.Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1. There is delay condonation application. As respondent was duly served but has not given appearance before this Commission hence delay condonation application is proceeded exparte against the respondent. Hence we heard Adv.S.N.Tandale for the appellant on delay condonation application.

2. According to Ld. Adv. S. N. Tandale, there is 49 days delay in preferring the appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that, the first copy of judgment passed by Ld. District Commission Latur in case No.CC/28/2021 and impugned order has been passed on

17/11/2022. The office of Registrar issued the copy of judgment and order on dated 17/11/2022 which is received office of appellant on 12/12/2022. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27/1/2023.but appellant filed on 17/3/2024 after 49 days delay.

3. Appellant submitted that appellant is the sub-ordinate of servant of MSEDC Ltd. which is semi-Government body the appellants has to obtain the necessary instructions from his superior authority i.e. Chief Engineer, Latur for filling appeal then he has taken the opinion of Law Officers at Aurangabad. The panel advocates MSEDC Ltd. call the necessary document which was filed by the complainant before District Commission and certified copy of judgment and order of the District Commission of Latur as well as receipt of statutory amount deposited in the Commission, then the advocate filed this appeal before this commission in these event and said communication, the delay has been caused for the filling the first appeal.

4. Therefore, delay has been caused in filling the appeal is not intentional if the delay is not condoned, it will cause failure of the justice which is sought to be rectified under this appeal.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned.

5. On the perusal of record it reveals that impugned judgment has been passed on 17/11/2022. The office of Registrar issued the copy of judgment and order on dated 17/11/2022 which is received to appellant office on 12/12/2022. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27/1/2023. But appeal filed on 17/3/2023, after 49 days delay.

6. On perusal of impugned judgment and record before us, we are of the view that, there is merit in this case as well as delay is not intentional. The appeal is required to be decided on merit. Delay is caused due to procedural ground, even delay is not intentional one, but has been caused for the considerable period of time. For the just decision of the case on merit the delay is required to be condoned.

7. Therefore, there is no hurdle to condone the 49 days delay. Under such circumstances, it is just and proper to allow the delay condonation application to give an opportunity to hear the applicant/appellant on merits. Hence delay is condoned subject to cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in the ‘Legal Aid Account’ of this Commission.

..................

DR.NISHA A. CHAVHAN PRESIDING MEMBER ..................

N C KUMBRE MEMBER