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

1. (Common order)

    

2. Appellants have filed the present appeals aggrieved by common judgment and order dated 31/07/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur in Consumer Complaint Nos.CC/16/352 and CC/16/353. Alongwith the appeals the applicants have also filed an application for condonation of delay of 355 days in preferring the appeals. Applicants have contended that though the impugned judgment and order under challenge came to be passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur on 31/07/2018, the applicant No.3 received the certified copy of the order only on 15/09/2018. After receiving the certified copy the applicant No.3 visited the office of the counsel and the counsel suggested to prefer the appeal in all the four cases and also sought time to discuss the matter. Further the counsel told the applicant No.3 that it will take time of 15 to 20 days to draft the appeal, but he did not draft the same and so appeal could not be drafted. Applicant has contended that on 24/10/2018 she lost her grandfather due to road accident. After performing the last rituals applicant No.3 again visited her counsel but her counsel told that in the absent of instructions he could not draft the appeal and asked her to contact after seven days as he will require the said time in preparation of appeal and case papers.  On 03/11/2018 the applicant No.3 met with road accident and was seriously injured and took treatment and recovered. The applicant lost her uncle Satyabrata s/o Santosh Kumar Chatterjee due to heart attack on 26/11/2018. The applicant again visited counsel’s office but he was out of station. Applicant has contended that in the month of January 2019 she was suffering from fever as well as jaundice  and taking treatment from Dr.Magtani. Applicant was also under severe mental shock due to death of her parents as well as uncle. Applicant was again suffering viral fever and severe backache during the period from 27/06/2019 to 04/07/2019. Applicant No.3 again contacted her counsel in the second week of July 2019 but the said counsel showed his inability to proceed with the matter and so she took back the papers from the counsel and appointed  another counsel. Applicant has contended that thereafter she was searching new advocate and after searching the papers and after collection of the documents new advocate has preferred the appeal and due to that there was delay of 355 days in filing the appeal. Complainant has contended that though the delay of 355 days has taken place but the same was beyond her control. Applicant was also unable to file the appeal due to death of her close relative. Applicant has very good case on merit and in case the application for condonation of delay of 355 days is not allowed then serious prejudice is likely to be caused and so appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.
3. After filing of the application for delay condonation due notices were sent to respondents and same were also duly served, but despite service respondents failed to appear and so application for condonation of delay proceeded ex-parte against the non applicants/respondents.
4. We have heard Ms.Bhure, learned advocate for applicant on the point of delay condonation. During the course of arguments the learned advocate for applicant has drawn our attention to the documents on record namely copy of one notice published in daily ‘Lokmat’ news paper dated 29/08/2018, death certificate regarding the death of grandfather and uncle and medical certificates issued by Dr.Mangtani. It is argued by the learned advocate for applicant that applicant No.3 came to know about the impugned order passed on 31/07/2018 only on 29/08/2018 while reading the local news paper and on getting the certified copy of the order. It is submitted by the learned advocate that thereafter the applicant immediately contacted her counsel namely one Mr.Raman Naktode, but the counsel informed her that due to some personal difficulties he has not informed the order earlier and so applicant collected the papers from the said counsel and engaged another advocate. According to learned advocate, thereafter also she did not get proper response or assistance from her advocate as required and so time was lost. Meanwhile applicant lost her grand father due to road accident on 24/10/2018 and also one uncle. It is argued by the learned advocate for applicant that the applicant No.3 was under shock and trauma due to death of grant father  and uncle and further she was suffering from illness for the period from 27/06/2019 to 04/07/2019. During the course of argument the learned advocate has also drawn our attention to the local news paper as well as the death extract. On going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay we find that there was delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal. Applicant has herself stated that the impugned judgment and order passed on 31/07/2018 and she received the certified copy on 15/09/2018. On going through the contentions of the application of condonation of delay we find that the applicant has not only taken the ground of her own illness and death of her grant father and uncle but has also attributed the delay to her advocates who were engaged from time to time. On perusal of the application same shows that the applicant No.3 was duly represented in the proceeding before the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur by advocate Mr.Raman Naktode. We have also gone through the death certificate as well as medical certificate filed on record. It is needless to mention that the applicant was under bounden  duty to explain the delay in a satisfactory manner and sufficient cause has to be shown for the delay. Here in the present case there is delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal, but as stated earlier the applicant has attributed the delay mainly to lack of assistance on the part of her advocate which in our view cannot be termed as satisfactory ground looking to the delay of 355 days.
5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for applicant that though there was delay of 355 days in preferring the appeal the same may be considered sympathetically in view of the ground stated in the applicant. In this respect learned advocate for applicant has also placed reliance upon certain rulings. At the outset learned advocate Ms.Bhure has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Professional Couriers……V/s……Nakul Vasantkumar Morakhia, reported in 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 295. We have gone through the same. In that case there was delay of 502 days, but in that case the appellant had come to know the order in execution and after receiving the certified copy he filed the appeal. Learned advocate has further relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asaram Shivaji Patole……V/s……Brijmohan Laddha, reported in 2018(6) MHLJ 122. In that case the Hon’ble High Court was dealing with Section 5 of Limitation Act and not the Consumer Protection Act. Further the learned advocate has also relied upon one judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Shikah Ibrahim Janmohammad…….V/s…… Teckchand alias Ravindra Rathod, reported in 1986 SCC Online Bom.299. In our view both these judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as here we are dealing with the question of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act which is a welfare legislation. We have mentioned earlier that though the applicant filed medical certificate on record for the period of illness but the applicant has mainly attributed huge delay to lack of assistance on the part of advocate and in searching for new advocate, but in our view the same cannot be termed as sufficient cause considering the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal. It is now well settled that the applicant himself is accepted to be diligent after receiving the copy of order to be challenged.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects we feel that explanations of delay of huge period of 355 days cannot be termed as satisfactory and so we pass the following order.            

1.  

                                         // ORDER //

2. Application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed, Consequently the appeals are stand disposed off.
3. The copy of  order be furnished to both parties free of cost.