Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1162/2024

R.MOHAN S/O RAJASHEKAR AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S URS KAR SERVICE PVT LTD., REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

BHASKAR C R

10 Jun 2024

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/1162/2024
( Date of Filing : 10 Oct 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/09/2020 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/433/2015 of District Mysore)
 
1. R.MOHAN S/O RAJASHEKAR AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS
RAT NO.150, A AND B BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, NAVILU ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSORE 570023
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S URS KAR SERVICE PVT LTD., REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHOW ROOM ADDRESS M/S URS KAR SERVICES PVT. LTD., NO.201, S.NO.1/B, HANSUR MAIN ROAD, HINKAL MYSORE 570017
2. IN CHARGE HEAD, FAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE DOOR NO. B-19, RANJANGAON, MIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA RANJANGAON - SHIRUR PUNE,MAHARASTRA-41210
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Jun 2024
Final Order / Judgement

A-1162/2024

 

 

10.06.2024

 

ORDER ON ADMISSION

 

 

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The Appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2020 passed in CC.No.433/2015 (R) on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru and prays to allow the appeal and set aside and modify the order passed by the District Commission.

2. The office has noted that, there is a delay of 1067 days in preferring the appeal and appellant sworn affidavit that, he was not keeping well hence he could not meet any counsel to handover the papers of the case and he was compelled to stay in Mysuru only due to ill health. Hence he could not file this appeal within the limitation period. The said delay is not intentional, but for bonafide reasons, hence prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

3. On perusal of the affidavit sworn by the appellant, the grounds urged for non-filing of the appeal well within time is not satisfactory. The appellant has not established before this Commission that, the appeal is filed belatedly due to unavoidable circumstances. Mere stating he was not feeling well or ill-health without documents/medical records to condone the delay. Further no materials placed to show he suffered ill health.  If at all the appellant decides to prefer an appeal, he shall file an appeal within 45 days as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act.  The reasons assigned in the affidavit are not reasonable/satisfactory and the delay is fatal to the appeal. 

4. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2018 (2) CPR 507 (NC)-the matter between M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., v/s Kulvinder Singh Bahl, the appeal can be dismissed on the point of delay alone.  Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the point of enormous delay. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

 

The delay application is hereby dismissed.Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.No order as to costs.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

 

Member                                                    Judicial Member

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.