25.10.2024
ORDER ON ADMISSION
SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.13.09.2024 passed in CC.No.208/2018 on the file of 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The office has pointed out that there is a delay of 304 days in preferring the appeal and sworn affidavit that due to work, he was unable to prefer an appeal within the stipulated period. Further submits that he took considerable time to receive the order copy and he had to apply for certified copies of the judgement. Hence, the delay. If the delay is not condoned, they will be put to great hardship and damage, hence, prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Heard 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. The appellant has assigned the reasons for condonation of delay in a casual manner. The appellant has not established before this Commission that the appeal is filed belatedly due to unavoidable circumstances. 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.
5. 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, the following:-
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed on delay.No order as to costs.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
KCS*
