(Delivered on 09/03/2021)

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

1.         Appellant – Comnwen Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd.  has filed the present  appeal challenging the  impugned order passed by the  learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  in   Consumer Complaint No. CC/365/2016. Along with the appeal the present appellant/applicant has also filed an application for   condonation  of delay  in  filing the present  appeal.

2.         Appellant /applicant  has  taken  a  plea that  it was running  a business  of service center  for Motorola Company at Nagpur and non applicant had approached  to the  applicant  for repairing of his mobile hand set. Applicant has  contended  that  the non applicant  had approached  the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and notices were also issued  to  the  Manager but he   did not  inform  the  applicant  company and so exparte order  came to be  passed against the present applicant. Applicant has further  contended  that subsequently  the complaint  filed  by the non applicant /Consumer  came to be allowed but  the  applicant  was not aware  about the same. The applicant got knowledge only after the applicant received the notice in execution proceeding. The applicant was having no knowledge of  the proceeding  as the Manager of the service center did not give any information to the applicant. The applicant  got knowledge about the same  in the month of  December-2018 and thereafter  the applicant  sent  the  papers  to its Director and thereafter  to  the  advocate  and then appeal was filed  but there was a delay of  55 days. The applicant has contended that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate and so delay of 55 days needs to be condoned.

3.         Non applicant has strongly opposed the said application by filing reply.  At the outset  non applicant  has contended  that  the delay was not of 55 days  but in fact  there was  abnormal  delay  of 805 days in filing the appeal. The  non applicant  has  contended that  the order  was passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on 06/01/2017 and so the appeal was to be filed within  stipulated  period of 30 days  but the same  is filed after delay of  805 days.  The applicant has not given any satisfactory explanation for this in ordinate delay of 805 days.  The non applicant has denied that the applicant has no knowledge about   the passing of order dated 06/01/2017. According to the non applicant  the reasons given  by the  applicant  are not  at all satisfactory  or genuine  and therefore, application  deserves to be  rejected with cost.

4.         I have heard Mr. D.S.  Agnihotri, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the non applicant extensively.   It is submitted by Mr. D.S.  Agnihotri, learned advocate for the applicant  that  the  applicant  company had no knowledge  regarding   passing  of order by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on 06/01/2017 and  the applicant  came  to know  about the same  when  the execution  proceedings  started  and notice was received in the month of November -2018. Secondly,  Mr. D.S. Agnihotri, learned advocate for the  applicant  has submitted  that  the Manager of  the  service center  had not given the  necessary  information   to the applicant  company and so the  applicant  was unable  to prefer  the appeal.

5.         Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the  non applicant  has strongly  opposed  the contents  of the applicant for  that  the applicant  had no knowledge regarding  the  passing  of order  by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on 06/01/2017. In this regard the learned advocate  for the  non applicant  has drawn my attention  to  the various  documents  filed  with list.  It is submitted by Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate  that  after  the impugned order  came to be passed  on 06/01/2017 the non applicant /Consumer  had issued  a letter  to the present  applicant  on 27/01/2017. The non applicant  has also  placed  on record  one copy of postal receipt  which  clearly shows that  the said letter  dated 27/01/2017 was duly received  but was  refused  by the applicant  company. The non applicant has also filed one copy of notice dated 04/07/2017 which was also duly received by the present applicant.  On the basis  of  these two documents, Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the  non applicant  has submitted that  the contention of the present  applicant  that  he had no knowledge  regarding  the impugned order dated 06/01/2017 was devoid of any foundation. I find  considerable  force  in this  contention  as the documents filed  by the non applicant  on record  speaks for themselves.  In the light of these documents the contention of the applicant that   it had no knowledge regarding the impugned   order dated 06/01/2017 cannot be accepted at all.

6.         Coming to the second contention of the applicant regarding suppression of fact by the Manager of the applicant company also does not appear to be satisfactory.  It is difficult to accept that the Manager of the applicant company did not inform the applicant about the proceeding. It is very clear  from the record  itself  that the impugned  order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  which is under challenged  was passed  on 06/01/2017, appeal  was filed  in February -2019 and so it cannot be said that  the delay was of  only 55 days. On the contrary  as contended  by the  non applicant  there was  delay of about 27 months.  Further I also  find that reasons  given by the  applicant  for  condoning  the   delay   do not at all appear to be  satisfactory  or reasonable.  It is well  settled  by catena  of decisions of Hon’ble  Supreme Court as well as  that of  Hon’ble  National Commission that the grounds of delay must be satisfactory and should  also  inspire  confidence. On this  aspect  Mr. Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the  non applicant  has placed  reliance  upon  various   judgments which are  as under:-

i.          New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Khanna and Anr. reported in 2003(1) CPR 52 (NC)

ii.          Jugraj Singh  Vs. Jaswant Singh and Anr. reported in   1970 (2) Supreme Court Cases 387.

iii.         Goli Eswariah Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1970(2) Supreme Court Cases 390. 

7.         I have gone through the said judgments and  I am of the view that  the  observations made   in aforesaid  judgments squarely apply to the facts  of the present  case.  Consequently,  I  hold that  the grounds  and reasons  set out  for condonation  of delay cannot be  termed  as satisfactory   at all and so I pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.

ii.          The appeal is dismissed.

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