Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2334/2024

MR PRASHANTH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EHOMEDECOR INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

MDR CHAMBERS

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/2334/2024
( Date of Filing : 09 Aug 2024 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/11/2023 in Case No. CC/335/2022 of District Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional)
 
1. MR PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O M KRISHNAPPA GOWDA R AT KADTUR THIRTHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577432
SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S EHOMEDECOR INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED
BRAND NAME DECOR DREAMS HAVING REGD OFFICE AT SWATHI TOWERS NO 473 2ND FLOOR RBI LAYOUT 80 FEET MAIN ROAD 7TH PHASE J P NAGAR BANGALORE 560078
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

 

29.10.2024

ORDER ON ADMISSION

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in CC.No.335/2022 on the file of 1st & Rural Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2.     Heard on admission – The office has noted that there is a delay of 228 days in filing the appeal.  The appellant has filed an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay and sworn affidavit that the impugned order is passed on 07.11.2023 and then his counsel obtained the certified copies of the impugned order.  Thereafter, his advocate instructed them to secure his signature but due to uncontrolled situation he is not able to come to India, as on date he was working at Singapore.  Due to the above said reasons the delay of 228 caused.  The delay is not intentional but for a bonafide reasons hence, prayed to condone the said delay. 

3.      On perusal of the affidavit sworn by the appellant and the reasons sworn in the affidavit are not satisfactory.  It is a clear case of negligence on the part of this complainant in preferring this appeal well within time. 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:-

ORDER

Application u/s 5 of the CPC Act 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.

 

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                        (Ravishankar)   

        Member                                      Judicial Member 

ARD*                      

 

 
 
[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.