STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/CB2/27/MA/64/2023 IN SC/CB2/27/A/23/89 VIKAS GANPATRAO SHENDE PRESENT ADDRESS - NAGARI BANK COLONY , HINDNAGAR , WARDHA 442003 ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PRESENT ADDRESS - MAHARASHTRA JIVAN PRADHIKARAN , INFRONT OF G.S.

COMMERCE COLLAGE, WARDHA 442001,MAHARASHTRA.

DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER PRESENT ADDRESS - MAHARASHTRA JIVAN PRADHIKARAN, CIDCO BHAVAN ,3RD FLOOR SOUTH BLOCK MUMBAI 400614 MAHARASHTRA,MAHARASHTRA.

PRADHAN SECRETORY PRESENT ADDRESS - WATER SUPPLY AND CLEANER DEPARTMENT, 8TH FLOOR GOKULDAS TEJPAL HOSPITAL BUILDING, MANTRALAYA MUMBAI 400001 ,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

VIKAS GANPATRAO SHENDE FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE DATED: 16/10/2025

ORDER

PER MRS.KALYANI KAPSE, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Appellant has preferred the appeal against the rejection of review application to the final orderdtd.29/10/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Wardha. (In short “The District Commission”) in Complaint Case No. CC/66/2019. Along withappeal the appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the appeal.

2. Record shows that the Notice was issued to the respondent/non -applicants namelyExecutive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Mumbai and Pradhan Secretary, Water Supply Department. Adv. G.K.Bhusari appeared for the non-applicants. But reply to the application for condonation of delay is not filed on record.

3. Applicant has contended in its application that the order copy of ARI/2022 is not received despite several remainders. The order copy is received after giving application under RTI Act 2005.The reply of RTI Act reveals delay of order since from 18/05/2022 to 15/09/2022 due to busy working of court.The order copy is not in usual format caused the applicant in confused state of mind.That due to acute pain in his both knees and taken treatment in ortho hospital unable to file Appeal within prescribed time. Hence delay caused is of 86 days.

4. We have heard Mr. Vikas Ganpatrao Shende, applicant in person.None present for the non-applicant at the time of hearing on the said application. We have carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay.

5. We have observed that Order dated 29/10/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wardha in complaint case No. CC/19/2022, the Certified copy was received on 27/12/2021. The limitation period for filing days ends on 27/01/2022. Peruse the record, appeal came to be filed on

13/03/2023 under section 41of C.P. Act, 2019. Delay caused is of 403 days.

6. The Commission has carefully perused the reasons stated in the application and the documents placed on record. The Applicant/Respondent No.1 miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay of 403 days. The cause shown for the inordinate delay is neither satisfactory nor sufficient to explain the long delay in filing the appeal. It is a settled principle that “sufficient cause” must be a bona fide and reasonable explanation and not a mere formality. The applicant has failed to show any cogent or convincing reason for the delay. In view of the above, this Commission holds that no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. As a consequence, the appeal being barred by limitation is dismissed. Hence we pass the following order-

//ORDER//

i. The Application for Condonation od Delay is hereby rejected.

ii. As a consequence, the appeal being barred by limitation is dismissed.

KALYANI KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER