A-972/2024
14.5.2024
ORDER ON ADMISSION
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the IA order dated 20.9.2023 passed in CC.No.53/2023 on the file of the Bengaluru 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and prays to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
2. The advocate for appellant filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing this appeal along with affidavit. The office has noted that, there is a delay of 132 days in preferring the appeal and appellant submitted in the application that, the said delay is mainly attributable to the delay in procuring the certified copies of the impugned order dated 20.9.2023, despite the appellants best efforts to expedite the same. The court ought to take a pragmatic approach in condoning the delay and not a strict approach. Hence, there is a delay in filing this appeal. The said delay is not intentional, but for bonafide reasons. If the delay is not condoned, the appellant will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, prayed to condone the delay in filing this appeal.
3. Heard from the advocate for appellant on admission.
4. On perusal of the affidavit sworn by the appellant, the grounds urged for non-filing of the appeal well within time is not satisfactory. When there is a delay, the burden is upon the person who appeared before the Commission to explain it by sufficient reasons. The appellant has not established before this Commission that the appeal is filed belatedly due to unavoidable circumstances. The order passed on 20.9.2023 whereas the appellant had applied for certified copies only on 7.3.2024 which was delivered on 15.3.2024, the delay is nearly 151 days. The said reason is not satisfactory and also not the valid grounds to condone the delay. 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 justifiable 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
jrk
