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

1)      Appellant National Insurance Co.Ltd has preferred the present appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay in preferring the present appeal. Appellant/applicant has taken a plea that though the impugned order under challenge and passed by the learned District Consumer Forum came to be passed on 31/08/2018. Subsequently the documents and papers were sent to Divisional Office. Applicant has also taken another plea that the papers were entrusted to advocate Mr.G.H.Khetkade at Amravati. But due to his demise the papers of appeal were received late and there was delay of six months in preferring the present appeal. Applicant has contended that the delay is caused due to genuine grounds and so the same deserves to be condoned. 

2)      Learned advocate Ms.Smita Taksande has appeared for the respondent/complainant and has strongly opposed the application by filing reply on record. Non applicant has contended that the applicant has not placed on record any documents nor details as to when exactly the papers were entrusted to the earlier advocate and when the same were received back. Applicant has also not explained day to day delay of six months and so application is not tenable in law and deserves to be rejected.

3)      I have heard Shri Bijwe, learned advocate for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Smita Taksande for non applicant. I have also gone through the contents of the application of condonation of delay. Applicant has sought condonation of huge delay of six months in preferring the present appeal, but the applicant has attributed the delay solely to the death of earlier advocate Mr.G.H.Khetkade of Amravati. Applicant has also not given any particulars as to when the papers were entrusted to the earlier advocate and also the details as to when the papers were sent to Divisional Office or the Regional Office as alleged.

4)        It is now well settled by catena of decisions that the delay under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should not be inordinate or malafide in nature. Applicant is under the obligation to explain to delay of the entire period of six months in cogent and satisfactory manners. As such, I find that the applicant has not given satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay and so I pass the following order.

                                                     // ORDER //

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