A-310/2024

15.3.2024

ORDER ON ADMISSION

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2023 passed in CC.No.07/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot 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 184 days in preferring the appeal and appellant sworn affidavit that as their office did not receive the certified copy of the order and then they applied for the order copy on 30-8-2023 and the same was received on 4-9-2023. The appellant was not conversant with the legal proceedings, he contacted his advocate at Dharwad and he informed that the society has to file an appeal before this authority, in this process there is some delay. 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. 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 administrative delay and unaware of the procedure and time provided for filing this appeal is not the valid grounds to condone the delay. Further no materials placed before this Commission 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.

                                                        Judicial Member