ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL OPERATION Vs. G.PURUSHOTHAM RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FA . IA. No. 1571/1999 is an application for condoning the delay of 8 days in the opposite party in C.D. No. 111/1996 on the file of Warangal District Forum presenting the appeal FA. SR. No. 3239/1999 questioning the order of that District Forum therein dated 6.5.1999. The order was despatched on 17.9.1999 and was received on 21.9.1999 by the petitioner/appellant as seen from the endorsement on the certified free copy of the order of the District Forum filed with the appeal papers. The last date for presenting the appeal, therefore, was 21.10.1999. The appeal was presented on 29.10.1999. The reason for the delay in presenting the appeal was stated in the affidavit in support of the application for condoning the delay as follows : It is submitted that after receiving the order on 21.9.1999 from the Consumer Forum, Warangal, we approached the Board Advocate to give the legal opinion. After perusing the judgment, Advocate advised to file appeal before the A.P. State Commission. As per the opinion of the Advocate note circulated in the office to obtain permission from the higher authority to file the appeal. The officer concerned granted permission to file appeal. Based on the opinion of the Advocate, we approached the Standing Counsel at Hyderabad, to prefer the appeal and hand -over the bundle to the Standing Counsel alongwith the other material which are required for the purpose of appeal.  We do not find sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay.

(2.) IN the result F.A. I.A. No. 1571/1999 is dismissed and consequently the appeal FA. SR. No. 3239/1999 is rejected.

(3.) IN A.O., Telecom District Manager v. Sheela H.N. Gaunekar, I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC), the National Commission refused to condone a delay of 9 days in presenting the appeal and examined the order of the State Commission in order to ascertain whether the order of the State Commission was vitiated by any illegalities or irregularities with a view to find out whether it merited intervention in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the Act for short). We, therefore, examine the order of the District Forum to satisfy ourselves about its legality and regularity with a view to find out whether it requires intervention in exercise of our suo motu revisional powers under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. We have the record of the District Forum also before us. We find that the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by any illegalities or material irregularities.