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 Commissio