Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1) Appellant/applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in preferring the present appeal.
2) Applicant has taken a plea that he was aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/13/354 which cames to be passed on 17/02/2018. Applicant has taken a plea that though the impugned order came to be passed on 17/02/2018 free copy of the impugned order passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur was never received by the applicant. Applicant applied for certified copy of the order and the same was received by the advocate of the applicant on 17/12/2018.After receiving the certified copy, the same was sent to the head office of the company located at Mumbai and time was consumed in obtaining necessary sanction. Applicant has contended that there was delay of about 12 months and one day in filing the present appeal, but the delay was bonafide and was for sufficient cause and so needs to be condoned in the interest of justice.
3) Non applicant/respondent has appeared and strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay. Non applicant has denied that the delay of 12 months and one day was bonafide in nature or that the applicant never received free copy of the order Dt.17/02/2018. On the contrary non applicant has pointed out that the free copy was sent by post by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur by outward No.221 Dt.21/05/2018 and this fact was duly verified from the register of Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. Grounds stated by the applicant was not at all bonafide and the applicant was very much aware and had knowledge regarding the passing of the impugned order Dt.17/12/2018. Non applicant is a widow and lame excuses are being made by the present applicant. As such there is no merit in the application of condonation of delay and the same ma be dismissed with cost.
4) Advocate Shri Sachin Jaiswal has vehemently submitted before me that though the impugned order was passed on 17/02/2018, certified copy came to be received by the advocate of the applicant only on 17/12/2018 and thereafter some time was consumed in obtaining the necessary sanction. According advocate Mr.Sachin Jaiswal delay caused was for bonafide reason and cause was also sufficient. On this aspect advocate Mr.Sachin Jaiswal was placed reliance upon the following judgments.
- New India Insurance Co.Ltd…….V/s……Smt.Shanti Misra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 237.
- N.Balakrishnan……..V/s……M.Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 77 SCC 133.
- Ramji Dass and others…….V/s……Mohan Singh, reported in 1978 ARC 496.
5) Advocate Mr.M.S.Wakil has strongly rebutted this contention and has pointed out that the delay of 12 months caused in the filing of the present appeal can not be termed as bonafide or reasonable at all. Shri M.S.Wakil, learned advocate for non applicant has pointed out that in fact free copy of the impugned order Dt.17/02/2018 was duly sent by the office of Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur to the applicant vide outward No.221 Dt.21/05/2018 and so contention of the applicant that he received certified copy on 17/12/2018 can not be accepted at all.
6) On this aspect Shri M.S.Wakil, learned advocate for non applicant has also relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission reported in 2019(4) CPR 386 (NC), Shazad Khan…….V/s……Samdeep Vijayvergiya and others. In this case it has been observed that the party is not entitled for condonation of delay as a matter of right. I have gone through this judgment and same is applicable in our case.
7) I have carefully gone through the contents of the application as well as reply and also citations on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocates. It is very clear that the impugned order came to be passed on 17/02/2018 by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. Applicant has taken a plea that he received certified copy of the order on 17/12/2018 and he never got free copy of the impugned order Dt.17/02/2018. But this fact has been denied and it is shown that free copy was infact sent to the applicant on 21/05/2018 vide outward No.221. As such the contention of the learned advocate for appellant does not appear to reason. Even otherwise It was clearly open to the applicant to immediately apply for an extra copy of the impugned order after getting knowledge of the order passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. No doubt, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the application for limitation should be considered in liberal manner, but the same is relating to the provisions of Limitation Act. However, in my view, the limitation as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act 2019 are to be construed in a strict and proper manner and applicant has to give satisfactory explanation for the delay. In my view, explanations given by the applicant regarding delay of 12 months and one day can not be termed as satisfactory and so the contentions advanced by the learned advocate of the applicant can not be accepted. As such I pass the following order.
//ORDER//
- Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently appeal is hereby dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- Copy of order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
