(Delivered on  03/08/2021)

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

1.         Appellant /applicant has preferred an  appeal challenging  the judgment and order dated 30/11/2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in complaint case No. 786/2013. Along with the appeal the applicant  has also filed an application  for condonation of delay  of 1185 days  in preferring the present  appeal. Applicant has  taken a plea that  though the impugned order  came to be passed  on 30/11/2015 by the  learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, the present  applicant  was  not served  with the copy of  impugned order nor had any knowledge  regarding  the same.  The applicant got knowledge regarding  the  impugned order when the non applicant  filed  execution proceedings and  issued notice to the applicant on 14/01/2019. After receiving notice, the applicant  appeared  and furnished  the bail.  The applicant  has contended  that in the year 2016 and 2017 the applicant  was  passing  through  financial crises  due to  demonetization  and thereafter  he filed  the present  application  but there was  delay of 1185 days and it was bonafide and genuine.  Applicant has therefore prayed for condonation  of delay in filing the present appeal.

2.         Non applicant /respondent has strongly opposed the application  by filing reply on record.  Non applicant  has contended  that the present  application  was not at all bonafide as the applicant  had every knowledge  of the impugned order dated 30/11/2015. Applicant  not only appeared  in execution  proceeding  but also filed  draft of sale deed   on 01/03/2019 but  suppressed  the fact that  he is going to  file appeal.  Non applicant had also issued notice to the  present  applicant. Further the applicant had received the free  copy of  impugned order on 15/03/2016 and therefore,  applicant had knowledge  regarding the impugned order.  Delay of 1185 days in filing the application was not genuine and bonafide. No proper reasons are given and so application deserves to be rejected.

3.         I have heard  Mr. Robin Somkuwar, learned  advocate  for the applicant and he has argued  in terms  of the  contents  of the application  for condonation of delay. Mr. Robin Somkuwar, learned advocate  for the applicant  has contended that the applicant  did not have any knowledge  regarding  the impugned order  dated 30/11/2015 and thereafter  applicant  was passing   through  financial crises  due to demonetization. It is submitted by Mr. Robin Somkuwar, learned advocate for the applicant that even  long delay of 1185 days can also  be condoned, if proper   and satisfactory  explanation  is given for the delay. On this aspect he has heavily relied  upon  one judgment  in the case of Kashiben Vs. Narshibhai, delivered  by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Civil  Application No. 10151 of 2011. I have gone through this judgment  but  before  dealing with  the same it is necessary  to point out that the applicant  has placed  on  record  one  free copy  of the impugned  order date 30/11/2015. Bare perusal  of the free  copy of the impugned  order shows  that  the same was supplied  to the present  applicant  on 15/03/2016 and thereafter  certified copy  was supplied  on demand  on 03/05/2019.

4.         I have also  heard  Mrs. Rohilla, learned advocate  for the non applicant and she has pointed out that after  the  applicant  appeared  in the execution proceedings the non applicant had also served  the legal notice and same  was also duly received by the  present applicant  on 24/04/2017. Non applicant  has also placed  on record  copies of roznama of execution  proceeding to show that  the applicant  was  not only aware  of the impugned  order  but  had also suppressed  the facts of filing  of appeal.  From the aforesaid  facts  it is very clear  that the applicant had knowledge  of impugned  order dated 30/11/2015 and  the contention that  he got knowledge  only when  the execution  proceeding  started  is not tenable and  cannot be accepted.  It is necessary  to mention  that  the applicant  has  filed  the present appeal  after  huge delay of 1185 days. It is also  pertinent  to point out that  the applicant  is  under bounden duty  to give sufficient  and proper explanation  for this  long delay of 1185 days  in filing  the present appeal but  the present  applicant  has only stated  that  due to financial crises  and demonetization  he could not  file appeal which  does not  appeal  to reason  nor can be termed  as sufficient  cause.  It is now well settled  by catena  of  decisions that  limitation  which  respect  to Consumer Protection Act, 1986  has  to be  construed  in strict and  not  liberal  manner.

5.         Coming  back to the judgment  of  Kashiben Vs. Narshibhai,(cited supra) on which  reliance  is placed  the facts were quite different  and in that  case sufficient  explanation  was given  for  the long delay. I therefore  feel  that  judgment  on which  reliance  is placed  by Mr. Robin Somkuwar, advocate  will not go to help the  applicant and  contentions of  the applicant   on the count of delay  cannot be accepted and so I pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

ii.          No order as to cost.

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