Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1)      Applicant/appellant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Applicant has contended that he was aggrieved with the order passed on 07/04/2017 by the learned District Consumer Forum, Bhandara in Consumer Complaint No.130/2016. Applicant has taken a plea that though the impugned order was passed on 07/04/2017 the same was not communicated to the present applicant and the applicant was not aware of the judgment. Applicant got knowledge when the respondent started execution proceedings on 19/07/2017 and notice was issued to the present applicant. Applicant thereafter appeared before the learned District Consumer Forum, Bhandara and also sought time. But there was delay of about one year and 7 months in preferring the present appeal and the same is bonafide and needs to be condoned in the interest of justice.

2)      Respondent has appeared and filed reply categorically denying the contention and the allegations made in the present application. Respondent has contended that the applicant was very much aware of the impugned order dated 07/04/2017 as the free copy of the judgment was also delivered to the applicant, but he deliberately  avoid to file the appeal within limitation. Application is not bonafide and so needs to be rejected.

3)      I have heard the learned advocate of the applicant as well as advocate of non applicant. I have also gone through the contention of the application. Applicant has also taken a sole plea in the application that though the order was passed on 07/04/2017, the applicant was not aware about the same till the execution proceedings started against the applicant. Applicant has taken a plea that he got knowledge only when he received the summons of execution proceedings. But admittedly free copy of the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhandara came to be supplied to the applicant. Applicant is under bounden duty to explain the entire delay by giving cogent and satisfactory reasons. Here in the present case the applicant has filed an application after huge delay of one year and seven months, but applicant has not given any convincing reasons for this huge delay on the part of applicant except stating that applicant has no knowledge regarding the order, which does not appear to be tenable. As such the grounds mentioned by the applicant can not be termed as satisfactory grounds and so I pass the following order.  

                                                     // ORDER //

1. Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected and accordingly appeal is infractuous.
2. Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.