A-1898/2023
8.11.2023
ORDER ON ADMISSION
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2022 passed in CC.No.159/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore 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 173 days in preferring the appeal and appellant sworn affidavit that the appellant’s mall was closed with effect from 01.05.2021. He was unable to collect the copy of the order of the District Commission from the successor tenant. The copy of the impugned order was received only on 29.3.2023. Notice was not served on the appellant and also no intimation was received from any of his partners. The notice was served on the person set up by the 1st respondent and he was placed exparte in the proceedings. The appellant came to know about the proceedings only after enquiry with the successor tenant and he was handed over the copy of the order. Hence, there is delay. 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. Where there is a delay, the burden is upon the person who appeared before the Commission for condonation of delay to explain it by sufficient reasons. The appellant has not established before this Commission that the appeal is filed belatedly due to unavoidable circumstances. Mere unaware of the notice is not valid grounds to condone the delay. Even after the service of the notice, the appellant has not appeared and not taken any defence before the District Commission and placed exparte. 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.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to disburse the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
