Karnataka

StateCommission

A/322/2015

Raghavendra Shetty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Kumar

18 Apr 2022

ORDER

18.04.2022.

:ORDER:

BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

          We have heard arguments from the respondent.  Neither the appellant nor his counsel present and submit their arguments.

2.       The learned counsel for respondent submits that the appellant has filed this appeal after lapse of 105 days from the date of passing the impugned order by the District commission.  The reason narrated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that the appellant was not in station and therefore he could not file the appeal well within time and hence prays to allow the application.  The said reason is not justifiable.  Hence, prays to dismiss the delay condonation application as well as appeal.

3.       On going through the memorandum of appeal and application filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act along with certified copy of the order, we noticed that there is a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal.   The reasons narrated in the affidavit accompanying to the delay condonation application states that after disposal of the complaint, his advocate has informed him to approach the advocate at Bangalore to prefer an appeal, but he could not meet the advocate at Bangalore as he was out of state for considerable period in connection with his business and he was able to collect the certified copy of the order in the month of February-2015 and contacted his Advocate at Bangalore who instructed him to prefer the appeal and however after going through the papers, his advocate instructed him to send all other papers and accordingly he approached his Advocate at Karwar and sent the papers to his advocate.  Thereafter he preferred the appeal.  The delay is only for bona-fide reasons and not intentional and hence prays to allow the application. 

4.       The reasons narrated in the application extremely personal and not bona-fide one.  The appellant went out of station for his business purpose and not cared to prefer the appeal well within time.  Therefore, it is not a just cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.  Hence, the delay application filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act liable to be dismissed.  

5.       Apart from that he alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased from Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3.  The District Commission has dismissed the complaint for the reason that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.  The District Commission has noticed that he has not purchased the vehicle for his livelihood as because he is having business called Prakruti Products Private Limited.  Therefore, the District Commission held that it is a commercial transaction and dismissed the complaint as the complainant is not a Consumer. 

6.       The appellant did not appear before this Commission since form admission to submit his arguments how he is not satisfied with the order passed by the District Commission.  We consider the appellant has purchased and used the vehicle for the purpose of his business and the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is not a Consumer.  We found there is no any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed both on the delay condonation application and on merits.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.                  

 

Lady Member.                                                      Judicial Member.

Tss