Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1) Applicant/appellant has filed the present appeal alongwith the present application for condonation of delay of 1049 days in preferring the present appeal.
2) Maroti Aatram has taken a plea that he alongwith non applicant No.2 and one Gopal Ghadase were partners of Maa Durga Real Estate formed the partnership firm and the purpose was to develop the land and to sell plots. Applicant has contended that the non applicant No.1 entered in to an agreement for purchase of two plots for valuable consideration. However, subsequently non applicant No.1 filed Consumer Complaint No.141/2014 and the same came to be decided ex-parte on 03/12/2015. Applicant thereafter applied for certified copy of the said order Dt.03/12/2015 and received the certified copy on 26/09/2018. Applicant also received another certified copy of the order Dt.03/12/2015 on 16/10/2018. Applicant then came to know that the learned District Consumer Commission had proceeded ex-parte against the present applicant and so he preferred appeal on 20/10/2018. Applicant has taken plea that the delay of 1049 days in filing the appeal was bonafide and unintentional and so needs to be condoned.
3) Respondent No.1 has appeared and strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.1 has categorically denied that the applicant has no knowledge regarding the passing of the order on 03/12/2015 or that he came to know only when non bailable warrant had came to be issued against the present applicant. Contentions raised by the applicant were false and the delay was not bonafide, hence same deserve to be rejected.
4) I have heard S.Sonak, learned advocate for applicant. It is submitted by Shri Sonak, learned advocate for the applicant that though the impugned order came to be passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur on 03/12/2015, the certified copy of the said order was received only on 26/09/2018 and thereafter the present appeal came to be filed. However, if we carefully go through the application for condonation of delay, the present applicant has not mentioned as to when he applied for certified copy of the said order. Applicant has only stated that he came to know about the same when non bailable warrant came to be issued against the applicant. However certified copy of the impugned order itself shows that the order had came to be passed on 03/12/2015. Applicant has himself stated that there was delay of 1049 days in filing the present application, but he has not mentioned when he applied for certified for certified copy of the said order and cause of delay. As such bare statement of the applicant that he got knowledge about the impugned order Dt.03/12/2015 on 26/09/2018 or when non bailable warrant came to be issued against him does not appeal to reason at all and can not be accepted. It is needless to mention that the huge delay of 1049 days in filing the present appeal has to be explained in a proper and satisfactory manner and the same should be bonafide more particularly when we are dealing with the question of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. During the course of argument Shri Sonak, learned advocate has also relied upon one judgment in the case of Sambhaji Khanduji Nagare..…..V/s……Taher Khan s/o WahedKhan and Ors, reported in 2013(6)Mh.Lj 346 : 2014(1) AIR Bom.R 53: 2014(10) R.C.R.(Civil) 1167:2014 M.C.R.133. I have gone through this judgment. In that case facts were quite different and the applicant had taken plea that he was never served with the summons of the suit and ex-parte decree was passed. In that case Hon’ble Bombay High Court had taken view that the applicant can take a ground of non service of summons, but here the facts are quite different as we are dealing with the question of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5) As such I feel that the case on which reliance has been placed by Sonak, learned advocate is not applicable to the facts of the present case. I am also unable to accept the contention of the applicant that he got knowledge about the order Dt.03/12/2015 passed by learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur only when he received the certified copy on 26/09/2018 and so huge delay caused in filing the appeal of 1049 days can not be termed out as genuine or bonafide, and so I proceed to pass the following order.
//ORDER//
- Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently the appeal A/18/455 is hereby dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- Copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
