(Delivered on 02/02/2023)
PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.`
1. Appellant/applicant –Smt. Summan Wd/o. Vijay Shriwastav has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 06/09/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/181, along with an application for condonation of delay of 1347 days.
2. The applicant has contended that the present appellant /applicant is the wife of Proprietor of M/s Welcome Developers namely Mr. Vijay Shriwastav who died on 25/09/2016 and after his death the present appellant /applicant has become the proprietor. The appellant /applicant have no idea about the transaction which took place between her husband and the respondent/complainant. The appellant/applicant has contended that the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur on 06/09/2018 but the appellant being the wife was not at all aware of the transaction or the proceedings between her husband and the complainant and came to know about the same only in the month of February-2022 when she received the copy of execution petition and copy of the order. The appellant has contended that the registered documents were executed in favour of the respondent/complainant but the respondent/ complainant did not withdraw the complaint and execution proceeding. The appellant has contended that she was a widow and single mother of the Son Om Vijay Shriwastav and respondents were taking undue advantage of this fact. The appellant / applicant has contended that there was delay of 1347 days in preferring the present appeal but the same is genuine and bonafide and so needs to be condoned.
3. After due notice, respondent/complainant has appeared before the Commission and filed reply and strongly resisted the application for condonation of delay. The respondent / complainant has categorically denied that the present appellant was having no knowledge regarding the impugned order passed on 06/09/2018 by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. The respondent has contended that the appellant /applicant who is the wife of Vijay Shriwastav was very much aware of the transaction with the respondent /complainant as well as the filing of the Consumer Complaint but despite receipt of notice the appellant /applicant has not appeared before the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur and so complaint proceeded against exparte. The respondent /complainant has also contended that despite fact that the complaint was decided, the appellant /applicant did not execute the sale deed and executed only Agreement to sell. The respondent/complainant has contended that the impugned order was passed on 06/09/2018 and notice was also received by the present appellant /applicant on 21/09/2019 but till the appellant /applicant did not comply with the order. The respondent had also issued another notice to the appellant /applicant and same was also duly received. As such the contention that the appellant were no knowledge about the impugned order dated 06/09/2018 is not tenable in law and is devoid of substance, no satisfactory explanation given for the delay of 1347 days and so the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed.
4. We have heard, Mr. Chahande, learned advocate for the appellant /applicant on the point of condonation of delay as well as Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent /complainant.
5. The learned advocate for the appellant /applicant has also drawn our attention to the documents on record including certified copy of impugned order dated 06/09/2018. If we go through the certified copy of impugned order, it can be seen that the free copy was issued to the appellant /applicant on 21/09/2018 but thereafter the present appellant /applicant applied for second certified copy and same was delivered on 06/06/2022. However, Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent /complainant has contended that the appellant was very much aware of exparte order was passed in the Consumer Complaint. Further it is argued by the learned advocate for the respondent /complainant that after the order was passed, notice was also issued by the respondent /complainant to the appellant and same was also duly received by the present appellant but despite the same the present appellant did not take any steps to comply with the order dated 06/09/2018 and so the respondent /complainant was compelled to file execution proceeding. As per the submissions of Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent/ complainant the appellant had knowledge about the impugned order dated 06/09/2018. It is also submitted that thereafter the execution proceedings is started and particulars of accused were also recorded on 11/05/2022.
6. We have gone through the contents of the application as well as reply and other documents filed on record. Admittedly, there is delay of 1347 days in filing of the appeal and appellant/applicant is under obligation to explain every day delay in filing the appeal but in the present case there is delay of 1347 days. If we go through the contents of the application for condonation of delay, the only explanation given is that the appellant/ applicant has no knowledge of the impugned order dated 06/09/2018. Further appellant/ applicant has contended that the reasons for the delay of 1347 days was beyond the control of the appellant /applicant which cannot be accepted and cannot be termed as satisfactory explanation. On the other hand, the appellant /applicant has filed documents to show that the appellant/applicant had due knowledge of the impugned order dated 06/09/2018. As such the grounds stated by the appellant /applicant in the application for condonation of huge delay of 1347 days cannot be termed as satisfactory and so we are not inclined to allow the application and so we pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Application for condoantion of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently appeal is dismissed.
ii. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
