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

Heard Shri S.I.Khan, learned advocate for appellant. I have also heard Advocate Shri S.R.Chakravarti for respondent. Appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the present appeal. Appellant has taken a plea that he has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur Dt.19/12/2017 but there was delay in preferring the appeal. Appellant has taken a plea that though the impugned order came to be passed on 19/12/2017, the appellant/O.P. had no knowledge regarding the same and came to know about the same when he obtained the certified copy of order on 04/04/2019. Appellant has contended that he was not served in the proper manner and so there was delay of 468 days in preferring the appeal. Learned advocate for respondent/N.A. has strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay of 468 days in preferring the appeal and has argued that the appellant was duly served at the office address, but he deliberately remained absent. In this regard he has also drawn my attention to the copy of judgment wherein the official address was duly mentioned. Bear perusal of the copy of the judgment would also show that the present applicant was duly served with the notice and  still he remained absent. Applicant can not take shelter by submitting that he received the copy on 04/04/2019. Applicant was under bounden duty to give satisfactory explanation for extreme delay of 468 days, but no such satisfactory explanation is given for the same and so in the absence of proper and satisfactory explanation the application for condonation of delay can not be accepted. Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected, consequently appeal is  dismissed. No order as to cost.