UMA SUNDARI NAYAK vs Indian Oil Corporation

-APPELLANTS are the L.Rs. of complainant Mr. Gajender Nayak (since deceased) who filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that according to the complainant (since deceased), respondents are jointly and severally liable for the negligence in supplying a defective LPG cylinder to him, which resulted in outbreak of fire leading to the death of his daughter and sustaining injuries on himself and other family members as also loss of household goods. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint by awarding in all a compensation of Rs. 1,68,000 along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. As per record there is delay of 524 days in filing the appeal before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the application for condonation of delay. After going through this application, we are left in no doubt that this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation only as a counter blast to the appeal filed by the opposite parties before this Commission. The wording in the application itself makes clear that appeal has been preferred by appellant as a cross-appeal for enhancement, after the appeal filed before us by the ''dealer'' was dismissed and the appeal filed by the first respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is still pending for final hearing before this Commission. This all was/is very much within the knowledge of the petitioner.

It is also stated in the application that the widow of the complainant is aged about 62 years and it was not possible for her to take a decision to prefer this appeal. Admittedly, Mr. Gajender Nayak has died some time in 2003 and order of the State Commission was passed on 18.10.2005. We see no mitigating circumstances to condone the delay on this amount.

THIS appears to be a clear case, as mentioned earlier, of counter-blast. As per settled law, the delay has to be sufficiently explained. In our view, the delay has not been explained at all sufficiently or insufficiently - in view of which we are unable to condone the delay of 524 days in filing this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Accordingly, this appeal also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.