(Delivered on 08/03/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING  MEMBER.

1.         Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 have  preferred the  present  appeals feeling aggrieved  by the  impugned common order dated 05/09/2019 passed by the learned  Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Consumer  Complaint Nos. CC/16/25, CC/16/26, CC/16/27, CC/16/28, CC/16/29, CC/16/30, CC/16/31, CC/16/32, CC/16/33, CC/16/34, CC/16/35, CC/16/36, CC/16/81, CC/16/82, CC/16/83, CC/16/84, CC/16/85, CC/16/86, CC/16/158, CC/16/159, CC/16/344, CC/16/345, CC/16/346, CC/17/62, CC/17/63, CC/17/64, CC/17/77, CC/17/78, CC/17/79, CC/17/80 and  CC/17/81. Along with the appeals the applicants/appellants have also filed applications for condonation of delay of 511 days in preferring the present appeals.  Applicants/appellants  have  contended  that  though  the impugned order under challenged  was passed  on 05/09/2019 the applicants /appellants  did not get knowledge  of the same  from  their  advocate  as their   advocate  did not inform them and applicants came to know about  the same only  when  they received the summons of execution proceedings which  were  issued  on 14/01/2021. Applicants have also contended  that  they  were  ready  to settle  the matters  amicably  with the  non applicant and so time  was consumed  in the same.  Applicants have further contended that thereafter  they could not prefer the appeals as there was lock down declared due to Covid-19 Pandemic. According to applicants there was delay of 511 days in preferring the appeals but the same was not deliberate or intentional but was bonafide in nature and also beyond the control of  applicants and so  the applicants  have prayed  that  the delay of 511 days  in filing  the appeals  may be  condoned.

2.         Non applicants /respondents have appeared and filed elaborate reply denying all the contentions made in the applications. Non applicants have categorically denied that the applicants were having no knowledge of the order dated 05/09/2019 or that the advocate  had not  informed them.  Non applicants  have contended that  the lock down was declared  on 24/03/2020 but before  that  the  non applicants had  issued  notice  to the  applicants  on 15/11/2019 giving  intimation  about the order passed the  Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur and so contentions  made by the  applicants  were false.  Non applicants have also denied that the delay has to be counted from 05/10/2021 when the applicants get knowledge about the same.  The reasons given by the applicants were not at all satisfactory in nature and cannot be taken into consideration.  Therefore, applications for condonation of delay deserve to be dismissed with cost.

3.         I have heard Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for the applicants have reiterated the same contentions which were given in the applications for condonation of delay.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants  that  though  the order was passed on 05/09/2019 the  applicants  were not  having  knowledge about  the order and  thereafter  applicants  were  also making  efforts to  settle  the matters  amicably but this fact has been denied  by the  learned advocate Mr. R. G. Barai for the non applicants. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the non applicants  has submitted that  after passing  of the order dated 05/09/2019  he had also issued  a legal notice  to  applicants  on 15/11/2019 and this fact  itself shows that  the applicants were  having  knowledge about the order dated 05/09/2019.  The applicants  have also  taken  a  plea that after the order came to be  passed the applicants  were making  efforts to settle the matters  amicably  but  I feel  that  this cannot be the reasonable  ground to condone the delay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned advocate Mr. Soni for the applicants has also contended that the applicants could not file the appeals as there was nation wide lock down due to Covid -19 Pandemic. Applicants have also relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding extension of the period of limitation due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Copy of one order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23/09/2021 is also placed on record. Bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would go to show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has excluded the period from 15/03/2020 till 14/03/2021.

4.         Mr. R.G. Barai, learned advocate for the non applicants/ respondents has submitted that the lock down was declared in the month of March-2020 and so the applicants will not get the benefit of the same.  I also find that the common impugned order dated 05/09/2019 was passed much before the lock down  was declared in March-2020. The applicants were under bounden duty to explain the period prior to the lock down.  It is quite true that  the period of lock down  due to Covid-19 pandemic  has to be excluded  for the  purpose of consideration  as per the directions  given  by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but here in the  present  cases  the explanation  given by the  applicants  for the period  prior  to the  Covid-19 Pandemic  cannot be termed  as satisfactory so as to  condone the delay of huge  period  of 511 days  in filing the appeals. On the contrary, the learned advocate for the non applicants/ respondents  has submitted that  no liberal interpretation  can be given  and condonation of delay is not a matter of right. On this aspect he has relied upon judgment  in the  case of Radhakrishnan R. Vs. President, CDRF and Anr. reported in  2020(4) CPR 157(NC) and in the case of Estate Officer (H) Gmada & Ors. Vs. Balwinder Kumar Bhola, reported in  2020 (4) CPR 437 (NC).  I have gone through   both these judgments and they are applicable to the fact in hand. I therefore,  find  that  the applicants  have failed to give  satisfactory  explanation  for the delay of 511 days  in filing the appeals  and so  I pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Applications for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed. Consequently, appeals are dismissed.

ii.          No order as to costs.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.