AUM COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD vs RAUF ALI

THIS is a petition to condone the delay for 194 days in filing the appeal.

THE case of the complainant was that the computer sold to him was disfunctioning and ultimately failed, that he returned the computer and wanted the refund of the sale price and that the opposite party did not oblige. THE complaint is for the return of the sale price. The opposite party put forth before the Forum several objections. The first one was that what was sold to the complainant was not a computer but only spare parts. This, the District Forum found it difficult to accept because the amount paid was Rs. 80,000/- which is more or less the price of the computer. The District Forum noted also that there was a quotation for the sale of the computer, showing the intention to sell the computer. The second objection raised was that the matter required expert evidence and therefore that it should be referred to a civil Court. The District Forum did not accept this objection, and ruled that the matter is coming within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and that the complainant would not be directed to approach the Civil Court for relief. Then coming to the conclusion that the computer sold was defective the Forum directed the return of the amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party with interest. That order is dated 21.8.1996.

Against this order, the opposite party did not file any appeal in time. The complainant has filed an execution petition upon which order of arrest was passed. In these circumstances the opposite party prays by way of this petition to condone the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal. In support of his petition there is an affidavit of one J. Raman, working as an Advocate''s clerk in the office of the Counsel for the petitioner. That clerk says that the appeal was not filed in time even though the appeal and other connected papers were duly prepared and signed by the party in time, since the papers were misplaced in the office by in advertence and oversight, that they were traced out only on 20.4.1997. He further goes to plead that the petitioner has got a good and reasonable case in appeal.

WE shall examine the merits of this petition to condone a delay of 194 days. For such a petition, there should be an affidavit by the petitioner disclosing the facts and stating that he took steps to file appeal in time. The affidavit of the Advocate''s clerk, can be only an additional affidavit supporting the one by the petitioner. Further it is hard to believe that the petitioner remained inactive for 194 days, without enquiring with his Advocate about the fate of his appeal in which a sizeable amount is involved. The matter is set in motion only after the execution petition by the complainant. So this petition, in. which the delay is not properly explained cannot be allowed. It is open to the petitioner to proceed against the Advocate''s clerk in the manner known to law, if there was negligence on his part. In the circumstances of this case, the petition to condone the delay of 194 days is dismissed. Petition for condonation dismissed.