ORDER ON ADMISSION

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Opposite party has preferred this appeal against the dismissal order dt.27.12.2022 passed in CC.No.2080/2019 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Belagavi, which directed this appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay an amount of Rs.23,414/- with 6% interest which was collected earlier along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant had availed the loan for purchase of Honda Bike and agreed to pay EMI to the tune of Rs.2,522/-.  The said loan was not cleared by the complainant. During the payment of the EMIs, the complainant raised dispute with respect to the EMI amount and submits that he agreed to pay EMI to the tune of Rs.2,316/- and not Rs.2,522/- whereas this appellant had deducted Rs.2,522/- as EMI .

2.      Aggrieved by the said the complaint alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before District Commission.  The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amounts in fact this appellant is not liable to pay any amount as awarded by the District Commission. The District Commission made an error in not appreciating the defense taken by this appellant and also terms of loan agreement.  The complainant in fact had agreed to pay EMI to the tune of Rs.2,522/- and not Rs.2,316/- and it is also false that they have assured to rectify the EMI amount from Rs.2,522/- to Rs.2,316/-.  The District Commission has not appreciated the terms and conditions and allowed the complaint.  The complainant is liable to pay the EMI as agreed as per the agreement.  Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

3.      Further, they filed an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 126 days in filing this appeal and sworn affidavit that after obtaining certified copy of the order, the records were placed before head office and later after getting necessary approval the records were submitted to their counsel in order to file the present appeal.  Hence, due to administrative reasons that there is a delay in filing this appeal.  The said delay is not intentional but bonafide reasons and prays for condone the delay in the interest of Equity and Justice.

4.     Heard on condonation of delay on appeal.

5.     On perusal of the sworn statement accomplied with application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, we noticed that after obtaining the certified copy of the order this appellant placed the records to head office for getting necessary approval to file appeal.  Hence, there is delay in filing the appeal.   The said reasons sworn in affidavit are not justifiable.  The appellants head office has to take their opinion and file appeal as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  The Consumer Protection Act has provided 45 days to file appeal against the order passed by the District Commission.  The head office of the Appellant Authority has not shown reasons why there is a delay in providing approval.  Moreover, mere an administrative delay will not to be a just reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.   The reasons sworn in the affidavit are not for unavoidable circumstances.  As such the delay is not justifiable and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed as barred by time. No order as to cost.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Complainant.

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

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                          (Ravishankar)    

             Member                                    Judicial Member

P*