(Delivered on 24/03/2022)

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

1.         Appellant – M/s. A.K. Gandhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd.  has preferred  the present  appeal. feeling aggrieved  by the  impugned order dated 20/11/2017 passed by the learned District Consumer  Commission, Chandrapur. Along with the appeal the applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.  Applicant /appellant has contended  that  the impugned order was passed by the learned  District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur  on 20/11/2017 in Consumer Complaint No. 92/2016. The applicant has submitted that  there was dispute going on between  the applicant/appellant  and M/s. Tata Motors and Law Officers were busy in this dispute which were  going on  in various Courts. Applicant has further  submitted that  since  the applicant  was busy in Court matters  he could not prefer the  appeal   and  also came to know about passing of the order  for first time when the notice was received  from the respondent. Applicant  has contended that  there was delay of one year and seven months in preferring  the appeal and same  ws not intentional  or deliberate and so same needs to be condoned.

2.         Respondent has filed  reply to the application for  condonation of delay and strongly  opposing the application for condonaton of delay.  Respondent/non applicant  has categorically  denied that  the applicant  was not  aware about  the order passed on 20/11/2017. Respondent/Non applicant  has contended that  the appellant /applicant  was private firm managed by one Mr. A.K. Gandhi and  delay  had taken place as the appellant  had not taken steps.  No satisfactory  explanation  has been given for the delay of one year and seven months. Appellant /applicant  was having well qualified engineers and account officers. As such  application filed  by the applicant  was not tenable  in law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

3.         Applicant and advocate  remained absent and so we have heard learned advocate for the respondent.  We have also gone through  the contents of the application  for condonation of delay filed by the present  applicant.  On going  through the same it is seen that  the impugned order was passed  on 20/11/2017 whereas  the present appeal  has come tobe filed on 01/06/2019 after the delay of one year and seven months. Applicant has taken a plea that  though the order passed on 20/11/2017 by the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur the present  applicant  could not file the appeal as dispute was going on between  the appellant  and M/s Tata Motors and all the officers of the appellant  were involved in  the dates of  the Courts and Forum outside Nagpur.  Applicant came to know  about the order only when notice was received  from the respondent.  The learned advocate  for the respondent  has submitted that  the explanation  given  by the applicant  for the delay of 1 years and seven months was not at all satisfactory  in nature.  The learned  advocate for the non applicant/respondent  has submitted that  the appellant was having well  qualified engineer as well as  other officers and so  the explanation  given by the applicant  cannot be termed as satisfactory.  On this aspect the learned advocate for the non applicant/respondent  has also relied upon one judgment  in the case of Ali Baramy Vs.  Country  Vacations International  Holiday Club and Anr., reported in II(2013)CPJ 26A (NC)(CN). In that case  there was delay of only 49 days and explanation given was not found to be satisfactory. The learned advocate for the non applicant /respondent  has also relied on other judgments  in the case of Uhbvnl Vs. Satish Kumar, reported in II(2013) CPJ 22A (NC)(CN)  and  SDO Sub Division  Uhbvnl Vs. Durga Devi, reported in  III (2013) CPJ 417 (NC) and we have gone through the same.

4.         Here in the present  case before us the impugned order was passed on 20/11/2017 by the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur and there was delay of 1 year and seven months. It was necessary for the applicant  to explain such huge delay  in satisfactory  manner. We feel that  the grounds given in the application for  condonation of delay cannot be termed as satisfactory  at all and so we pass the following order.

ORDER

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

ii.          No order as to costs.

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