ORDER

1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short the ‘State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 678 of 2019.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant is present. Learned proxy counsel for the respondents is also present and submitted that the arguing counsel is not available today therefore, the matter may be adjourned.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently opposed the adjournment and submitted, since Non-bailable warrant has already been issued against the appellant therefore, the matter may be heard today itself. Upon it, the learned proxy counsel present in the Court submits that he is ready to argue the matter.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and proxy counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application being IA/7511/2025.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is ex-parte against the appellant. No notice was served / received by the appellant of the proceedings before the learned State Commission therefore, the appellant was not aware of the impugned order. The appellant came to know about the impugned order when he received the letter dated 27.12.2024 sent by the respondents / complainants on 31.12.2024. Thereafter, the appellant proceeded to engage a representation in Mumbai but he was advised to prefer an appeal before this Commission. Accordingly, steps were taken and few days were spent in search of a counsel in Delhi. Meetings were held on 26.02.2025 with the counsel, who advised to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant applied for the certified copy which was delivered to the appellant in three weeks. Thereafter, it took another ten days to dispatch the certified copy to the learned counsel at Delhi. The learned counsel filed the appeal after examining the documents; therefore, the delay of 176 days was caused. The delay was neither intentional nor malafide hence, the delay should be condoned.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the application for delay condonation. A written reply has also been filed against the application. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order though ex-parte, was passed against the appellant on 20.10.2023. The copy of the same along with a letter dated 27.12.2024 was sent by the respondents to the appellant, which was admittedly received on 31.12.2024 by the appellant. Even if the delay is counted from the date 31.12.2024 that delay has also not been explained by the appellant stating / submitting sufficient or convincing grounds to condone the said delay. After receiving the letter and copy of the impugned order sent by the respondents on 31.12.2024, the appeal has been filed before this Commission on 02.05.2025. It shows that the appellant did not act diligently to file the appeal at earliest, considering the statutory period provided under the Consumer Protection Act, which is thirty days only. He further submitted that the delay caused, after receiving the notice on 31.12.2024, has not been convincingly explained hence, this application for condonation of delay may be rejected.

7. Considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

8. The impugned order has been passed on 03.10.2024 ex-parte. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents / complainants sent the copy of the judgment, along with a letter dated 27.12.2024 to the appellant, which was delivered to the appellant on 31.12.2024. Thus, the appellant came to know about the impugned order on 31.12.2024. Thereafter, the appellant took another about four months