B.C. Kandpal J. (President) - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 on delay condonation application and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This appeal, with a delay of 101 days', has been preferred by the appellant - complainant against the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, thereby returning his consumer complaint No. 81 of 2008, so as to present the same before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. In the affidavit dated 04.01.2012 (Paper No. 2) filed by the appellant in support of the delay condonation application (Paper No. 1), it has been averred that the consumer complaint was decided by the District Forum per order dated 25.08.2011; that after the decision of the consumer complaint, the respondents contacted the appellant for resolving the dispute outside the court; that the appellant was made to believe that the respondents are resolving the dispute and allotting flat to the appellant; that on 03.01.2012, the appellant received a letter from respondent No. 1, whereby they have allotted a flat worth Rs. 4,87,448/ - to the appellant; that on receipt of the said letter, the appellant contacted his counsel, who advised him to file the appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum and thereafter the appeal was filed on 04.01.2012.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 filed affidavit dated 19.08.2013 of Sh. Santosh Pandey (Paper Nos. 46 to 48) against the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the delay condonation application, thereby stating that they have not offered for resolving the matter outside the court; that no assurance was given to the appellant regarding resolution of the matter and that the flat is being allotted to the appellant; that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal; that the delay in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned and that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal moved by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed his another affidavit dated 11.02.2014 (Paper Nos. 50 to 51) in support of the delay condonation application. In the said affidavit, it was stated that the appellant was intending to file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum and in the meanwhile, the respondents contacted him on telephone and told that they are willing to amicably settle the dispute outside the court; that the appellant got allured from the offer made by the respondents; that on receipt of the letter dated 28.11.2011, the appellant contacted the respondents and sought an explanation regarding allotment of flat worth Rs. 4,87,448/ - and that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and the same is liable to be condoned.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was made to understand by the respondents that they are willing to amicably settle the dispute outside the court and under the said impression and assumption, the appellant did not file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Forum and when the appellant came to know that the respondents have allotted a flat of lesser amount to the appellant, he immediately contacted his counsel and filed the present appeal and the delay in filing the appeal being unintentional and bonafide, is liable to be condoned and the appeal is fit to be heard and decided on merits. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that no such assurance was given by the respondents to the appellant for amicable settlement of the dispute outside the court and that the appellant having not shown any sufficient cause or reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the application for condonation of delay merits dismissal and consequently, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by time.;