Per D.N. Patel, J.

1. These writ petitions have been preferred against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal Nos. 311 and 312 of 2006 as well as in Appeal Nos. 322 and 323 of 2006 whereby the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had not condoned the delay of 195 to 197 days in all the aforesaid four appeals. Thus, these petitioners are praying for condonation of delay with some reasonable costs, so that Appeal nos. 311 and 312 of 2006 and Appeal Nos. 322 and 323 of 2006 may be heard on merits, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents were the complainants before the Consumer Forum at Hazaribagh. They filed complaint to the effect that M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company had not sold proper vehicle through their dealer and within guarantee period, there were damaged caused to the body of the vehicles, in question, and because of these damages, Consumer Forum at Hazaribagh had passed a common order in favour of the present respondents, which was challenged by these petitioners before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi by way of Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The time limit of thirty days for preferring appeal having already expired, applications were also preferred by these petitioners for condoning the delay of 195 to 197 days in filing the Appeals along with their aforesaid four appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (to be referred as “State Commission” for the sake of brevity).

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that several reasons have been mentioned in the delay condonation application inter alia that the certified copy was never received by the petitioners (original appellants) as envisaged under Rule 4 (10) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule, 1987). It is further submitted that when the petitioners had received notices in Execution Case Nos.10 of 2006 and 16 of 2006, they immediately applied for certified copy and simultaneously preferred Appeals before the State Commission and hence, there was a delay in preferring the Appeals. These facts have been stated in the memo of the Appeals as well as in the memo of delay condonation applications that the petitioners had never received copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hazaribagh as envisaged under Rule 4(10) of the Rules, 1987. These facts have not been denied by the respondents before the State Commission and hence, the order passed by the State Commission of not condoning the delay and thereby dismissing the appeals, deserves to be quashed and set aside, by imposing a reasonable costs. It is further submitted that these petitioners have got a very good case, on merits also, which will be agitated before the State Commission, at Ranchi. In fact, these respondents were carrying limestones in the body of the tippers, in question, and therefore, there was much possibility of damaging the body of the tippers.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that efficacious alternative remedy is available against the order passed by the Consumer Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi viz. Before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi under Section 21 of the Act, 1986. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in fact, these petitioners had applied for certified copy after the period of limitation and hence, they got the certified copy of the orders passed by the Consumer Forum, Hazaribag on 1st August, 2006. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the State Commission. It is further submitted that in fact, these petitioners are not ignorant of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum since in presence of their advocates the said order was passed and th